Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

LOCATION OF OFFICES BUREAU

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Location of Offices Bureau (Amendment) Order 1977 be made in the terms of the draft laid before your House on 23rd June.

I will comply with your request

DOUBLE TAXATION RELIEF

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Addresses praying that on the ratification by the Government of the Netherlands of the Protocol set out in the Schedule to the draft Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Netherlands) Order 1977 and on the ratification by the Government of Poland of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the draft of an Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Poland) Order 1977, Orders be made in the form of those drafts.

I will comply with your request.

I have received your Addresses praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Kenya) Order 1977, the Double Taxation Relief (Shipping and Air Transport Profits) (Zaire) Order 1977 and the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Profits) (Ethiopia) Order 1977 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

NORTH WEST WATER AUTHORITY BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

MERSEYSIDE PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [11th July], That the Bill, as amended be now considered.

Mr. Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day?

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Oscar Murton): No day named.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON BILL [Lords]

Ordered,
That the Promoters of the University of London Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend any further proceeding thereon in order to proceed with that Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than Five o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;

Ordered,
That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;

Ordered,
That as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office that such a declaration has been so deposited has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read the first time and shall be ordered to be read a second time;

Ordered,
That all Petitions against the Bill presented in the present Session which stand referred to the Committee on the Bill shall stand referred to the Committee on the Bill in the next Session;

Ordered,
That no Petitioners shall be heard before the Committee on the Bill unless their Petition has been presented within the time limited within the present Session;

Ordered,
That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings on the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;

Ordered,
That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

School Places (Allocation)

Mr. Wall: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she is satisfied that local authorities are giving sufficient weight to the desires of parents in their allocation of school places.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Miss Margaret Jackson): No, Sir.

Mr. Wall: Does the Minister agree that this is a fundamental question? Does she also agree that any local authority, such as the Humberside County Council, which is elected on such a mandate by an overwhelming majority is in honour bound to carry it out?

Miss Jackson: I find the situation in Hull a very interesting one since, as the hon. Gentleman says, the Hull County Council successfully campaigned on the basis of parental choice. But it is my understanding that in the county of Humberside no such system exists. It is only in the city of Hull where the existing system of allocation has been altered, to a banding system to give an increase of about 2 per cent. in parental choice. Although this may be something of value, it has somewhat distorted the effects of the system of allocation which previously existed.

Mr. Arnold Shaw: Is it not time that the myth of parental choice was dispelled—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and is it still not a fact that choice is governed almost entirely by the length of the parental purse?

Miss Jackson: It is not often that I say this, but I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. I do not accept that parental choice is a myth or that it is undesirable. Nor do I accept that the only fact which governs parental choice is the length of the purse. I do, however, accept that in the past this has too often appeared to have been a factor which was relevant.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for those remarks about parental choice, with which I entirely agree. Has she seen the poll in today's Daily Telegraph which shows that the overwhelming majority of parents want a greater say in the education of their children? How can she reconcile those conclusions with the decision of her right hon. Friend that schools should not be free to publish their examination results? If parents are to be free to make an informed choice about the education of their children, surely they should have a full prospectus of a school's work, including examination successes and failures.

Miss Jackson: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already raised this question and have said, even in the Education Bill last year, that we are indeed in favour of parents having the maximum possible information available from schools. What we have done in the Green Paper is to point out the problems that exist in simply publishing a league table of public examination results which are not necessarily a guide to a school's success without some further knowledge of the background factors against which the school is working. We are in favour of greater parental information. What we are not in favour of is misleading information.

School Milk

2. Mr. Torney: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if, in view of the fact that the EEC is prepared to make funds available for the extension of the provision of free school milk, she will bring forward legislation to extend the present limited scheme.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science and Paymaster-General (Mrs. Shirley Williams): As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State told my right hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Irving) on 18th July, I am considering with colleagues how best to take advantage of the EEC subsidy arrangements, but I am not yet in a position to give details.

Mr. Torney: Is the Secretary of State aware that she can give great assistance in three different ways? She can help to—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member cannot advise the Minister. He can only seek information.

Mr. Torney: I shall start again, Mr. Speaker. Is the Secretary of State aware that considerable help could be given to children's health by giving them milk and by extending this scheme? Will she consider helping the dairy industry as well, because there is plenty of milk about? If she were to agree to this, she could get back some of the crumbs from the massive deficit existing in the overall payments made to the Common Market.

Mrs. Williams: My hon. Friend's questioning reveals a certain amount of advice which I shell take into account. I am aware of all those things, but my hon. Friend should know that the EEC subsidy is applicable only to milk that is already subsidised by local authorities. That is why we have to look at the milk already subsidised in some form or another and see how we can best use the EEC funds.

Mr. Beith: Does the Secretary of State agree that there is a very good bargain here involving a farther £10 million of European money, especially in view of the survey showing that about 500,000 children go to school without breakfast? Does she agree that this would be worth while?

Mrs. Williams: Yes. In no way do I deny what the hon. Member has said. But this would apply only in cases where the local authority pays half or more of the subsidy. This is what presents the problem, because local authorities have already done their financing for this year. We are trying to find ways to overcome it.

Mr. Stan Crowther: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, if the local authorities agree to this, the net cost above the present scheme would be only about £8 million a year to provide or restore free milk to the junior school age group? These are the children from whom the milk was withdrawn by her predecessor, the present Leader of the Opposition. Would not this be a fairly modest price to pay for a great nutritional benefit?

Mrs. Williams: In the current year, where local authorities have already completed their budgets they would have to

find another £8 million and this might have to come off teacher employment. We are not prepared to accept this. However, we are seeing whether other ways can be found to use the EEC subsidy to assist with milk which do not involve local authorities in having to find savings on this scale.

Comprehensive Schools (Computerised Selection)

Mr. Dykes: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what examination she has made of the methods, impact and effects of computerised selection procedures carried out by local authorities for limited places in different kinds of comprehensive schools in their areas.

Miss Margaret Jackson: The Department does not monitor the admission arrangements of individual education authorities. Ministers have from time to time made clear their view, however, that they regard computerised selection as an inherently unsatisfactory method of determining which children should be admitted to individual schools.

Mr. Dykes: I thank the Minister for that reply, but I must press her a little further. Is she aware that there is a lot of public uncertainty and parental anxiety about this matter? Would it not be a good idea to publish an objective study on the use of this method in different areas and to advise local authorities accordingly?

Miss Jackson: I am not sure that we need a study before we can advise local authorities. We have made it very clear over a period of time that we are unhappy about the allocation of school places on a random basis. This is not compatible with the equitable allocation of these places. We have given advice to those affected. The whole question of school allocation and choice was the subject of a draft circular earlier this year, and it is a matter that we are considering at present.

Mr. Bryan Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that, whatever system or device is used for the allocation of children to various schools, there will be large numbers of parents who will be disappointed because they do not get their first choice? Does she not agree that


emphasis should be placed on improving standards of all schools and making sure that all children have access to good educational opportunities rather than emphasising the mc spurious notion that parental choice may be met totally?

Miss Jackson: I entirely agree. It is impossible—or, at least, no local authority has ever succeeded in this—to give parents their first choice in every case. Parental choice is a useful and good criterion to be taken into account, but I agree that we should realise that parents cannot be satisfied in every case. The right approach is to make sure that every school is sufficiently good for parents not to feel so strongly about not getting their first choice. In addition, however, in any reasonable system giving validity to parental choice, we should see that in cases where parents are dissatisfied there is a proper system to enable them to appeal.

Schools Council

4. Mr. Tim Smith: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on the proposed changes in the governing structure of the Schools Council.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: On 7th July the governing council of the Schools Council accepted an interim report proposing a new structure for the Council. I welcome the Council's readiness to take a radical look at its method of operating. Although a good deal remains to be done before changes can be made, there has been progress and I hope that a satisfactory conclusion can be reached at the Council's next meeting.

Mr. Smith: Does the Secretary of State consider that the proposal for two parent representatives out of a total of 53 on the Schools Council is adequate? Does she consider that the representations of lay interests have been accommodated sufficiently? What view does she take about the proposed exclusion from all three bodies of representatives of the independent schools?

Mrs. Williams: I am not sure whether the hon. Member is aware that the review is not being conducted by me. The Schools Council is conducting it. Therefore, it would not be right and proper for me to comment at this stage on the

interim report. In that report the Schools Council has gone a long way greatly to increase lay representation. It has accepted the majority representations for both a convocation and a finance and priorities committee, and in doing so it has reflected the recommendation of the Tenth Report of the Expenditure Committee of this House. I believe that this is encouraging progress.

Dr. Boyson: Is the Secretary of State aware that there is considerable agreement about the broadening of the lay element in the Schools Council? However, is she also aware that there is concern in other matters in addition to those mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Smith) a moment ago? There is concern about the fact that all teacher members, apart from one or two, are apparently drawn from the teaching unions and not from the professional bodies. Is she aware that in the convocation chamber the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals, the Free Churches and the representatives from the HNC and the GCE and CSE Examination Boards are no longer members by right and that this is causing great concern?

Mrs. Williams: Higher education interests and the Churches have made it clear how they feel about exclusion from membership. I am in no doubt that their representations and the comments made in this House will be taken seriously into account by the Schools Council. However, it would be neither right nor appropriate for me to tell the Schools Council at this stage what it should do. All I can do is ask it to consider the points that have been made by hon. Members.

Mr. Forman: Whatever the final recommendations of the review, will the Secretary of State confirm that the views of parents as a group will not be underestimated just because they do not have powerful representative organisations to bat on their behalf in the same way as the teachers and the local authorities do?

Mrs. Williams: That is a perfectly fair point. The Schools Council has been in existence for 12 years now, and this is the first occasion on which there has been a proposal that parents should be represented at all.

Adult Literacy Programme

Mr. Christopher Price: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what arrangements she intends to make for the continuation of the adult literacy programme beyond 1978.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): Since March 1976, plans have been made for the limited pump-priming grant of some £1 million per annum disbursed through the Adult Literacy Resource Agency to cease on 31st March 1978, after which the whole burden would revert to local education authorities as part of their general responsibilities for adult education. We are, however, carefully considering the recommendations made for the future by the agency through its parent body, the National Institute of Adult Education.

Mr. Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is somewhat irresponsible to prime pumps if one ensures that the pumps run dry three years later? Is he further aware that many employees of both local authorities and voluntary agencies, which have carried out some important and useful work in the last three years, feel that their jobs are in jeopardy until the Government announce their plans? Will he make sure that this money is spent on adult literacy after April 1978? When does he intend to make a statement?

Mr. Oakes: One cannot prime pumps forever, and I received the report of the National Institute only yesterday. I wish to pay tribute to the many people who were involved in the adult literacy scheme, especially the voluntary tutors and the BBC, for the tremendous work which has been undertaken.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware that in some areas such as Gwynedd the job creation scheme has been used to advantage? In view of the fact that the job creation scheme will be extended beyond 1978, will he give an assurance that nothing will debar authorities from using the adult literacy programme after 1978?

Mr. Oakes: I assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing will be done to debar local authorities from using the scheme. It is a matter for the Manpower Services Commission and the authorities.

Mr. Watkinson: Is it the Minister's intention to publish the report of the National Institute of Adult Education? Is he aware that a parliamentary reply recently established that over 100,000 people had benefited from this programme? In those circumstances, will he favourably consider a request from various bodies to continue the programme so as to benefit a great many more people?

Mr. Oakes: I can see no difficulties in the report being published. However, I should inform the House that I received the report only yesterday, and I note that there is a plan to continue schemes focused on adult literacy. I am considering that matter carefully.

Arts Council

Mr. Crouch: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she has any proposals to alter the structure and membership of the Arts Council.

Mr. Oakes: My right hon. Friend has no proposals for amending the Council's charter. Under the charter it is her function, in consultation with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, to appoint new members as vacancies occur.

Mr. Crouch: Is the Minister aware that two years ago I was one of the few politicians who saw fit to risk his reputation in defending the pile of bricks that was on display at the Tate Gallery? I am prepared to do so again if I can be assured by the Minister that he will make appointees to the Arts Council from among those who have a sufficient quantity of liberalism and conservatism.

Mr. Oakes: Yes, Sir. I notice that the hon. Gentleman missed out another party in the House. I believe that the Council should be expert and efficient. In appointing a body of people who command the confidence of taxpayers, who pay money to the Arts Council for its wisdom and objectivity, I am certain that my right hon. Friend seeks to achieve a balanced Council.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I welcome on behalf of the Opposition the rejection of the proposals for democratising the Arts Council made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short)? Although we would not wish to


have a separate Ministry for the arts, will the Minister consider, in recognition of the fact that this country has emerged as a world power in the arts, changing the name of his Department to the Department of Education, Science and the Arts? [Interruption.] I am sure Labour Members will appreciate that our post-war successes have taken place in the arts.

Mr. Oakes: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have led the arts throughout the world in many respects since the war. That position has been well recognised by every country in the world. As for any change of name of my Department, I believe that the hon. Gentleman has proposed such a change on other occasions but it is a matter for the Prime Minister to decide the names of Departments. I have no doubt that that matter can be taken into account.
In reply to the first part of the supplementary question concerning a report connected with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), I would inform the hon. Gentleman that it has not been rejected. It has not yet been considered.

Mr. Weetch: Will my hon. Friend take note that last year, under the heading of "mobile sculpture", three students walked around East Anglia with a yellow plank on their heads? Will he also take note that in that artistic tour of East Anglia the students called in at a good proportion of pubs on the way? Will he also take note of the fact that this artistic escapade was financed by grants from the Arts Council? [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] Will he also bear in mind that most of my constituents failed to understand this manoeuvre?

Mr. Oakes: I never cease to be amazed at what students do, but it is rare that what they do is financed by the Arts Council. I believe that there was a great deal of public concern over this matter which was expressed at the time. I know that my noble Friend examined the matter very carefully indeed. However, having set up the Arts Council, we should not as a House then seek to dictate how it should spend its money.

Education Grants (Discussions)

Sir David Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on her dis-

cussions with local authority associations on specific grants to local authorities for education purposes.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I met representatives of the Council of Local Education Authorities on 18th April for a first discussion of my proposals for introducing a limited measure of specific grant for education purposes. Since then a group of officials from my Department and the local authority associations have been considering the detailed implications.

Sir D. Renton: Is the right hon. Lady aware that, because of the large reduction in rate support grant adversely affecting most counties, especially Cambridgeshire, drastic reductions are having to be made in education in this financial year? In further discussions and decisions on this matter, will she ensure that everything possible is done to make up for the Government's folly and unfairness in reducing the rate support grant in the way they did?

Mrs. Williams: I am aware that there have been difficulties in some counties in the last year, although it is right and fair to say that the Government wanted to give some priority to inner city areas, from which I do not dissociate myself [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because those areas have much greater needs than many people are aware of. However, the question relates to specific grants, and the purpose of such grants is limited and clearly defined and is very important in obtaining additional money for particular educational purposes. Without that power, such additional money is hard to come by.

Mr. Noble: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the essential areas of provision should be language training for immigrants? Does she further agree that there is a desperate shortage of such training in many inner city areas, and that this prevents immigrants being given equal opportunities in terms of jobs, housing and other matters? Will she seek to ensure that as much money as possible is allocated to local authorities for this purpose?

Mrs. Williams: The question indicates the difficulty, because some additional money is being made available for the education of immigrants under Section 11 of the Local Government Act 1966 which


is administered by the Home Office, although the subject is concerned with education. Similarly, funds are made available for training through the Department of Employment. None of these funds can be made available through the Department of Education, for the straightforward reason that we have no power to do so. In my view, one of the crying needs is to give more positive help to disadvantaged children, immigrant and non-immigrant. At present we cannot do so.

Dr. Hampson: Since it was not in the Green Paper as a priority, will the right hon. Lady say whether it is a Government priority to promote vocational courses in further education? If so, does she intend to adjust the grant provisions, because grants are now so difficult to come by in respect of local authorities for technician and non-advanced work whereas they are generous for degree courses, which in some areas are needed like a hole in the head?

Mrs. Williams: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Green Paper devoted itself to the compulsory years of education between 5 and 16. He will also know from answers to previous Questions that my Department is monitoring the level and number of discretionary grants so that we can discover just what the situation is. I share the view that this is an area where we should almost certainly do something urgently.

Leicester

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether she will pay an official visit to the schools of the city of Leicester.

Miss Margaret Jackson: My right hon. Friend has at present no plans to do so.

Mr. Janner: When my hon. Friend or any other Ministers visit the city of Leicester, will they bear in mind the grave concern in Leicester and in all cities about the growing power of county councils in education? Is she aware that Leicestershire County Council has withdrawn all grant aid to village halls, voluntary youth services and community centre projects? Will she denounce and renounce the Government's previously expressed intention to give local authorities the power

to allocate such grants rather than retaining it, as all voluntary service workers hope, within her Department?

Miss Jackson: I am aware that in various parts of the country, including Leicester, there is some remaining conflict between the previous city councils and the new county councils which have adopted the powers previously employed by cities and boroughs. I am aware that in some cases in these areas there has been difficulty in assimilating the different policies and programmes of the two bodies that were previously concerned. Therefore, in one or two areas such as Leicester there is a demand to reduce the power of county councils. I must say to my hon. and learned Friend that this is not a matter for my Department and that, although we are aware of the difficulties that have been created in some areas, we very much hope that those difficulties can be resolved by local negotiation and local co-operation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]. My hon. Friend referred to the withdrawal of grant aid from other county council functions. These are, of course, powers which are exercised by county councils and which we have at present no intention to withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is two minutes past three and we have only reached Question No. 8. We are going far too slowly today.

Mr. Jim Marshall: Will my hon. Friend impress on her Government colleagues the need to continue the urban aid schemes which are providing help outside the formal education system and are doing a great deal of good work in cities such as Leicester with different ethnic groups? If this aid does not continue, at least one scheme in Leicester—the Youth Foundation, which is doing good work in the West Indian community—will go out of existence in the near future.

Miss Jackson: I am aware of the great need for these schemes in a number of parts of the country, and I am aware of how great a need Leicester has and how greatly it has benefited. I think that it is the intention that such schemes should continue.

School Meal Charges

Mr. Neubert: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether


charges for school meals will be increased in the autumn of 1977.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: Yes, Sir. As already announced in the public expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 6721), it is the Government's intention to increase the school meal charge to 25p this autumn. Entitlement to free school meals will be substantially widened.

Mr. Neubert: How much is the present total net cost to the Exchequer of subsidised school meals, and what will it be from September? Are there not educational purposes on which this money might be better spent?

Mrs. Williams: I am afraid that I cannot give the total net cost without notice of the question, but I can say that the cost of the revised remission is about £25 million, whereas if there had been no increase in charges of any kind the cost to authorities would have been between £60 million and £90 million. It would be about £90 million in a full year.

Mr. Hardy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is general recognition that the school meals scheme is a very important contribution to the health of the nation and that for that reason there is a great deal of anxiety that the extended entitlement to free school meals should be properly taken up? Will she give an assurance that her Department will concern itself with this problem?

Mrs. Williams: I thank my hon. Friend for what he has said. Free school meals are among the most widely taken up of any kind of income-related benefit. According to the latest figures there is about a 76 per cent. uptake, which is one of the highest of all such income-related benefits. If this position continues, another 625,000 children will be brought within the ambit of free school meals, which is almost a doubling of the present figure. That includes a rise in income of about £20 a week within which children will be entitled to free school meals.

Mr. Rathbone: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations have been made about the Government's proposals regarding charges for school meals for the next educational year.

Mr. Tim Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science what representations she has received about the Government's proposal to raise the price of school meals to 25p.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: My Department received 35 letters about the proposed increase to 25p. Sixteen of these were in favour of the increase this autumn, 15 were against, three thought that the charge should go up but by different amounts according to the age of the pupils, and one suggested that the charge should go up to 20p this autumn and to 25p next April.

Mr. Rathbone: Did the right hon. Lady receive any representations about the increased number of free school meals? Does she realise that in East Sussex alone this will cost the county council £6,300 per school day? [HON. MEMBERS: "What a shame."] It is, indeed, a shame. When our education services are being pared to the bone, contrary to all promises in the last Labour manifesto, is there not a better use for these limited Government funds to improve our education processes and teaching methods instead of giving these additional free school meals as the right hon. Lady has planned?

Mrs. Williams: If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is hopelessly out of date. The Government have announced that the full additional cost of £25 million which arises from the extension of free school meals to about 625,000 more children will be borne by central Government funds and will not fall upon the rate support grant. We have gone further and said that we shall discuss with the local authorities the best way in which this money should be paid to help them. There is, therefore, no question of their having to bear the cost. In addition, about 625,000 children will not have to have the 15p a day paid for them. The extra £1·25 per child will be borne also by central Government funds.

Mr. Renton: Is it the fact that the Government propose to put up the charge for school meals from 15p to 25p this September? If that be so, do they not have to lay the orders to that effect this week?

Mrs. Williams: The orders are being laid today. The discussions between my


Department and the local education authorities about the way to reimburse education authorities are now going ahead.

Mr. Moonman: Will my right hon. Friend take careful note of the fact that some local authorities are attempting to deal with this problem by alternative types of meal, in particular snack meals? When these experiments, such as that in Essex, are completed, will she make a close review of the matter before encouraging further local authorities to implement such schemes?

Mrs. Williams: I know of my hon. Friend's concern on this matter. I say at once that while authorities may, of course, introduce snack meals as an alternative to the school meal, should deplore any attempt to replace the school meal with a snack meal which has nothing like the same nutritional value.

Alcoholism

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she has received any representations on the incidence of alcoholism among schoolchildren.

Miss Margaret Jackson: No, Sir.

Mr. McCrindle: 1s there not growing evidence that drinking and alcoholism among teenagers is becoming as great a menace now as drug-taking was in the 1960s? I welcome the publicity given in schools in regard to excessive drinking, but does not the Under-Secretary feel that the same horrific approach as is employed to point out the dangers of smoking might well be employed in this case? Will she give this her backing?

Miss Jackson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confusing the problems of drinking—even excessive drinking—and alcoholism, which is a completely different degree of difficulty. I do not accept that there is a great deal of evidence of excessive drinking. There have been one or two reports, and in at least one of those the person preparing the report said that the incidence of such cases was minimal. This is an area which we are watching and which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is already watching, in connection with preventive medicine, but it is not my understanding

that there is great evidence that there is a serious problem at present.

Mr. Flannery: Does my hon. Friend agree that we should not exaggerate this problem and thereby convey the wrong impression and detract from education generally? Does she agree that there is deep concern among schoolchildren about the increase of drinking among adults?

Miss Jackson: Yes. I would add only that in a recent inquiry by Her Majesty's inspectors only one case of drunkenness in schools was found, and this concerned someone who had indulged at a party outside school and had a hangover the following day.

Mr. Nelson: Is the Under-Secretary aware that her replies this afternoon will be regarded by many people as showing a great deal of complacency? Has she read the report of the Medical Council on Alcoholism or of the National Council of Women which recently showed that about 50 per cent. of 13-to-15-year-olds drink on a fairly regular basis? Does she not feel that this implies that the Government should be considering taking further action to bring home to parents the importance of instructing children to appreciate this problem and the importance of instituting such education in schools as well?

Miss Jackson: There is a difference between drinking, even excessive drinking, and alcoholism. I accept fully that it is the responsibility of the school and parents and not of the schools alone. It is not the duty of schools alone to remedy the ills of society. I would add—perhaps it may be the fault of a politician—that I would rather be accused of complacency than of inaccuracy.

Broadcasting (Children's Programmes)

Mr. John Hunt: asked the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will make a statement on her meeting with the administrators of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Broadcasting Authority on the subject of the poor language content of children's programmes.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I have had informal discussions with both broadcasting authorities. These covered a wide range of educational topics including


language, and I think that our exchanges of views were while.

Mr. Hunt: While I welcome the Secretary of State's initiative in this matter, will she say whether any mention was made in those discussions of the debasement of the English language by the pop music morons on BBC1 and commercial radio, whose programmes are listened to by many children? If she has any further meetings, will she remind the broadcasting authorities that even disc jockeys should be both literate and intelligent?

Mrs. Williams: The Annan Report found that children's programmes specifically directed to children were both a delight to listen to and to watch and had considerable educational content. I add my tribute to that. It is my view that the problem arises in programmes largely aimed at adults but which are also watched by children. The hon. Gentleman, like myself occasionally, hears these programmes. Of course it is true that in some of them language is used in a very loose, inaccurate and sloppy way. I have drawn this to the attention of the broadcasting authorities, while I recognise that what the authorities do in children's programmes is undoubtedly of great educational help.

Mr. Evelyn King: Does the BBC still argue, as it used to do, that correct language does not matter? Is it not true that sloppy language in the end leads to inaccuracy of meaning, and is not this a grave drawback to the career prospects of children who suffer from that kind of approach?

Mrs. Williams: In my view, radio programmes are on the whole quite good in this respect. The trouble arises, I think, more with television and to some extent with pop music programmes. I think that some of the criticism which is made of children's literacy may take insufficiently into account some of the impact of the mass media on children's literacy.

Mrs. Bain: Given that television in particular is one of the most widely accessible educational instruments, and in view of the doubt about the future of many colleges of education, will the right hon. Lady press for closer liaison between the broadcasting authorities and the colleges of education, especially remedial educa-

tion departments, with a view to the language content of programmes being up-graded?

Mrs. Williams: There is already quite close liaison. Indeed, there has been very close liaison over such matters as the adult literacy programme, to which attention has already been drawn, as well as the forthcoming effort to introduce basic English to immigrant mothers for whom English is not their first language. In all this work, close co-operation between the BBC and the education service has brought great benefits to all our people.

Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the BBC produces programmes for deaf children which are much appreciated by both the children and their parents? Second, while I am about it, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether she agrees that the facilities for deaf children are not as good as they ought to be and, in particular, that they are very poor for Andrew Walters of 19 Damsbrook Drive, Clowne, about whom I have made representations to her Department? Will my right hon. Friend give a guarantee that this matter will be dealt with urgently so that young Andrew can be taught at school starting next term?

Mrs. Williams: The programme "Vision On", which is for deaf children, is an outstanding programme which has been much praised. With regard to the subject of the latter part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question—I congratulate him on his ingenuity in introducing it—we are doing all we can.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: Will the Secretary of State make clear that she does not agree with the view that all pop music programmes are moronic and contribute to illiteracy? Is it not a fact that most of them are entertaining and some of them are even instructive—including the "Jimmy Young Show", on which I appeared this morning?

Mrs. Williams: I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates that it was even more instructive when I was on it last month.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Speaker: Since the House has indicated overwhelmingly that it wishes


to move quickly on to substantive Questions to the Prime Minister, I hope that the first five hon. Members who have put down what I call "shot-in-the-dark" Questions will be brief and help the House to move on to substantive Questions.

Mr. Tapsell: rose—

Mr. Tebbit: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall be pleased to take a point of order after Questions. Otherwise, we shall use up Prime Minister's Question Time.

Mr. Tebbit: With respect, Mr. Speaker, may I put my point of order to you now? I shall be brief. Have you considered that, if you adopt this practice, the effect will be—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not now."]—I wish that hon. Members opposite would be quiet—the effect will be to encourage the putting down of that sort of Question because, as I understand it, you will not be in a position to call the Leaders of any Opposition parties on any of those Questions? Thus, we shall not even reach the most important of the specific and substantive matters today—that is, unemployment—with an opportunity for any of the Leaders of Oppositon parties to be called.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I was hoping that we should move down fairly quickly, if hon. Members would co-operate.

PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)

Q1. Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 26th July.

The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be holding meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.

Mr. Roberts: I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I believe that my shot will certainly not be a shot in the dark, or, if it is, I hope that it will lighten the darkness on the Government side. What callous comment has the Prime Minister to make on today's unemployment figure of 1·63 million? Second, in view of the Liberal Party meeting and tomorrow's NEC meeting, will the right hon. Gentleman spare a thought today about where

he stands on matters of political principle, if he has any?

The Prime Minister: As I have forecast, the unemployment figures are disappointing—[HON. MEMBERS: "Disappointing?"]—and they are of a size which shows the extent to which we still have to move in this direction. They are, of course, affected by the growth in the work force, which over the past two or three years has grown by about 500,000. They are affected also by the levels of inflation and by the extent of the world recession. These are all matters on which we are continuing to work, and by overcoming inflation we shall help that situation.

Q2. Mr. Viggers: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 26th July 1977.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. Viggers: In the course of his official duties, will the Prime Minister comment again on the unemployment figures? Does he realise that they represent 1,614,000 personal tragedies, and is he aware that such figures would have been inconceivable four years ago? How much worse do the figures have to be before his Government and those who sustain them in power realise that we need a change of policies or, better still, a change of Government?

The Prime Minister: I appreciate the significance and seriousness of this matter. I appreciate also the extent to which there has been benefit through the total number of workers who have been helped by the Government's special measures, such as the temporary employment subsidy, the job creation scheme and other such schemes. All of these are currently helping about 313,000 people. As regards change, I listened closely to the debate last week. I heard no suggestion whatever from the Opposition about policies which would have improved the present figure. All I heard were further ways of cutting public expenditure, which would increase it.

Mr. Speaker: I wish to indicate to the House that I intend to allow supplementary questions on the last of these


Questions, No. Q5, to run on because we shall not reach the substantive Questions.

Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that we live in a non-deferential society, are we required to bow to your ruling?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I believe that the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) was not getting at me, but at somebody else.

Q3. Mr. Moonman: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 26th July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. Moonman: Will the Prime Minister take the opportunity of making a statement, either today or at some other time before the Summer Recess, about implementation of the report of the Royal Commission on the Press, with particular regard to the key areas about strengthening the Press Council—which was the majority view of the Commission—and to the sort of aid that might be given by the State to newspapers in difficulties?

The Prime Minister: On the first matter, I certainly have much sympathy with that proposal, but the report was not published until three weeks ago and we have given until 31st December for consultation, discussion and proposals, including comments on the proposals in the minority report as well as in the majority one. We prefer to reserve our views until then. Help for newspapers in difficulty is an issue that should be considered at the same time.

Q4. Mr. Neubert: asked the Prime Minister whether he will list his official engagements for 26th July 1977.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. Neubert: Before we rise for the recess, will the Prime Minister set the Lord President—as a former working journalist—the holiday task of writing the Crossman memoirs on the Callaghan Cabinet? Should not future historians know the precise self-serving circumstances in which the principle of collec-

tive responsibility was abandoned and Ministers allowed to vote against their own legislation?

The Prime Minister: I should be happy to leave my literary and historical fate in the hands of my right hon. Friend. I am sure that he would do it justice and, with his great pen, this Administration could have no better chronicler.

Q5. Mr. Ashley: asked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for 26th July.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts).

Mr. Ashley: On the substantial if not substantive question of a return to free collective bargaining, if the Prime Minister discusses that matter today, will he recognise that, although it may correct the anomalies that have arisen during the pay policy, it will recreate the one of the most basic inequalities—that of the virtual poverty of low-paid workers, for whom the Government have done little in spite of the pay policy? Will my right hon. Friend dispel the prevalent myth that low-paid workers have done well during the pay policy and say what the Government propose to do to help them?

The Prime Minister: Low-paid workers have done relatively better, but that does not mean that they have done absolutely better as a result of the last two rounds of the pay policy. It is—and has been—Government policy to try to help families, especially those on low pay, by a number of measures of which my hon. Friend is aware
It is part of the system and one of the weaknesses of free collective bargaining that the rewards do not necessarily accord with social justice or the value of the work done. The rewards may do so sometimes, but not necessarily or always. However, the trade unions have indicated that they wish to return to the system of free collective bargaining and we must work within that context..

Mrs. Thatcher: To return to the unemployment level of 6·8 per cent.—a level that we have not seen in this country since the 1930s—will the Prime Minister now accept responsibility for unemployment and stop peddling the illusion that


all the economic indicators are going in the right direction?

The Prime Minister: The responsibility for unemployment rests with a number of factors of which the Government are willing to accept their share. Those factors include the level of inflation in this country, the world recession, against which British trade is doing extremely well—for example, our volume of exports was up by 6 per cent. in the last quarter—and a number of other such matters. While everyone should undoubtedly take this matter seriously, it is in nobody's interest to pretend that there is a magic solution. If there were such a solution, we might have heard it last week.
As for the second part of the right hon. Lady's question, she will find that I have said consistently that the indicators generally are turning in our favour. I should like to enumerate them. The retail price index is slowing down, there is upward pressure on the pound sterling, the balance of payments is moving into surplus, manufacturing investment is increasing, export volume is up, import volume pretty stationary, the mortgage interest rates are going down, and the reserves are up. Those are sufficient indicators to show that generally they are turning in our favour.

Mr. John Mendelson: Does the Prime Minister accept—in spite of all the protestations of the Leader of the Opposition and some of her supporters—the view expressed this morning in the City and on the Stock Exchange—[Interruption.] That reaction is quite expected. The view was that the policy always demanded by the Opposition has been responsible for the unemployment level, because during the last 18 months there has not been enough distribution of money in wages and salaries? Will the Prime Minister now completely reject the counsel of the Opposition and start the process of reflation which is the only hope for getting us out of this level of unemployment?

The Prime Minister: I agree that we must try to obtain growth in the economy as soon as we have overcome the rate of inflation. That is essential and it is something upon which the Chancellor of the Exchequer has already made moves through the last Budget. My right hon. Friend injected about £2¼ billion into the economy this year and that made a start.

As for rejecting the policies of the Opposition, had we adopted them there would now be hundreds of thousands of people out of work in Leyland and Chrysler on both of which matters the Opposition opposed our policy.

Mr. Wigley: In view of the disastrous unemployment figures for Wales that were announced today, will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the dismantling of the regional policy that the Government have followed by, for example, doing away with the regional employment premium? Will he institute positive economic planning to overcome these problems in Wales and other areas?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is totally mistaken. I was discussing last week with a number of people in Wales the great boom that will come from the steel investment of £835 million at Margam, the £40 million investment project at Hoover at Merthyr Tydfil, of which the Government will supply about £10 million, and from a host of other schemes by which we are helping to maintain the Welsh industrial structure. I assure the hon. Gentleman, as he does not seem to know much about the subject, that that structure is now much more resilient than it was 30 years ago.

Mr. Kinnock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is only one thing that is less convincing than a nationalist who wants a reflationary policy and who supports the Leader of the Opposition, and that is the Leader of the Opposition herself who, as a Tory arch monetarist with an ideological opposition to equality, has absolutely no authority or right to come to the House to berate my right hon. Friend about our employment policies when the deliberate intention of the Tory Party is to introduce mass unemployment as the best means of controlling the working class?

The Prime Minister: I do not know how Plaid Cymru will be able to defend in Wales its consistent support of the Tory Opposition that is trying to create further unemployment by its monetary and fiscal measures.

Mr. Henderson: Is the Prime Minister aware that within the global figure there are 194,000 unemployed in Scotland? He claims that no alternative policies were put forward in our recent economic


debate, but will he read my speech on that occasion and take urgent steps to increase the budget of the Scottish Development Agency? If he is not satisfied that the Secretary of State for Scotland is taking this action, will he replace him with someone who can?

The Prime Minister: I am satisfied that the Secretary of State is taking the necessary action. I repeat, through the House, to the country that the first essential is to overcome inflation. If we have wage and earnings increases that exceed 20 per cent., there will be nothing to stop unemployment going higher. Our first task is to overcome this, and I ask for the support of everyone in the country in doing so.

Mr. Noble: Will my right hon. Friend have talks with Ministers in the Department of Trade about the collapse of discussions on the Multi-Fibre Arrangement? Will he give an assurance to the workers and the industry in this country that, come what may, the Government will give them the support they need?

The Prime Minister: Negotiations on the MFA were brought to a halt yesterday because of the failure to secure agreement between a number of countries. Australia, India and Brazil, as well as EEC countries, had difficulties about the proposals. There must now be a series of bilateral discussions that I hope will lead to our being able to sign the protocol towards the end of the year and to renew the MFA. In any case, our textile industry cannot be allowed to dwindle away. We must do our best to ensure that there is international agreement—my hon. Friend has advocated that as the best solution—but, short of that, we shall have to think of turning to bilateral solutions.

Mr. Prior: The Government are responsible for unemployment and it is to the Government that the country must look for an improvement in the figures. Is it not a fact that while the Labour Party was in opposition it trumpeted across the Dispatch Box that there was a magic cure? Have not the Government's economic policies failed totally, and is not the Prime Minister aware that it is no substitute for a policy to start blaming the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: I do not accept that the Government's policies are not succeeding. They have been shown con-

sistently to be succeeding. That is why, every time there appears to be a threat of the Government being challenged, there is a substantial decline in confidence at home and overseas. As to the future, the House and the country must accept that the world's unemployment figures—[Interruption.] I accept the correction and exclude those countries where the Governments can take dictatorial powers. In the Western industrialised world we are going through a phase in which unemployment, in percentage and actual terms, is higher than ever. This is true in many countries, and, despite the discussions that the leaders of the Western world have been having, it has not been possible to find a solution to the problem. There is a great challenge to society here and I am not going to pretend that there is a quick or easy way out.

HONOURABLE MEMBERS (SUPPLY OF PAPERS)

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interpose this point today of all days, but it is a matter that needs your brief attention. The documents available to hon. Members in the Vote Office as a matter of course include not only parliamentary documents but non-parliamentary papers. This is enshrined in "Erskine May" somewhere or other—on page 258, in fact. One of the indispensable works for any hon. Member interested in tax law is the four volumes of the up-to-date version of the Taxes Act 1970, as amended. No hon. Member who is trying to do anything on the Finance Bill or on anything else to do with money would want to be without it.
The other month, I sent in a green form asking for this document—as I am entitled to do under the rules of "Erskine May". I had to sign—as does every hon. Member in such circumstances—to show that it was required not for keeping up a table but for the performance of my parliamentary duties. I then received a letter from a civil servant saying that this work was not available to hon. Members on their signature alone but that if I gave him an extra reason for thinking that I needed it—and hon. Members should remember that it is our Finance Act, not his—he would reconsider his refusal not to supply it to me.
In response to my urgent message to the Minister of State, Civil Service Office, who is in charge of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, I received the document the next day. However, the Minister persists in the view that this publication is not one that ought to be available to hon. Members on their signing the green form. He says that it comes in the same category as documents about getting fleas out of pigs' ears and other such technical works that can be s applied to me only if I can say, not once but twice, that they are required for the: performance of my parliamentary duties.
I do not think that there is a single hon. Member—except the Minister of State—who would be prepared to put up with such an absurdity. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I rest my case.

Mr. Speaker: I undertake to look into the matters raised and to make a statement tomorrow.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER

Mr. Jasper More: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Much as the House must have admired your conduct of Prime Minister's Questions, may I draw your attention to the fact that if we follow consistently your ruling in relation to Questions Nos. 1 to 5 the result could be to exclude entirely the Opposition Front Bench and two Liberal spokesmen from participation in Prime Minister's Question Time? Do you think that this is a desirable principle for Prime Minister's Questions?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important matter. We have been conducting an experiment on Prime Minister's Questions and it is due to finish this week. Obviously it is the wish of the House that the Opposition Front Bench should be heard during Prime Minister's Question Time [HON.MEMBERS: "No."] Well, it is the wish of a great many hon. Members. I tried to meet it today by lingering on Question No. 5. Obviously, all of us responsible for the business of the House will have to look at these matters and see how they have worked out.

Mr. Neubert: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask you to

consider some further points? The first is the practical point that if the present system is to be continued it makes no sense to have five successive hon. Members asking the same Question and receiving the same reply. That time could be used for other Questions.
However, I commend to you that the present system has some advantage in that those who put down specific Questions of substance may expect a considered reply. Those who ask shot-in-the-dark Questions must expect shot-in-the-dark Answers.
Thirdly, I commend the previous system as offering the opportunity twice a week to raise issues of immediate topicality of great importance to the public directly to the Prime Minister.

Mr. Carlisle: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As it appears that Prime Minister's Question Time is becoming a total nonsense when there are 10 Questions of the same sort put down, would not one possible way out of the difficulty be a rule of the House that no more than two Questions in identical terms be tabled to the Prime Minister on any one day?

Mr. Faulds: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the Prime Minister can usefully list only once his engagements for the day, would it not make more sense if only the first Question of that nature to come out of the hat were printed and that the rest should be allowed to fall?

Mr. Tebbit: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could we agree—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: It is all right for hon. Members to interrupt the hon. Gentleman now, but we have so much business that at six o'clock in the morning they will not be half as cheerful.

Mr. Tebbit: Could we agree, Mr. Speaker, that the experiment that has been conducted since the Prime Minister's statement in May has not been a success in that it has neither improved the quality of the right hon. Gentleman's answers nor led to more substantive Questions being answered? As it has led us into various difficulties, it might be better if we went back to the preceding system.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not worth noting that despite the fact that we had five similar Questions tabled to the Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend's job is to answer Questions whatever they are? My right hon. Friend comes to the House twice a week to answer Questions and sometimes he will be caught on the hop and sometimes he will be well briefed on the answers. It does not matter as long as topical questions are raised. However, is it not a pity that during the course of today's proceedings no one was called from the Government Benches to inform my right hon. Friend that the unemployment figures are a monumental disgrace and will not be improved until the Government change to a Socialist economic policy?

Mr. Speaker: I undertake to spend my recess considering what has been said. A very serious issue is at stake. Obviously the usual channels will have to consider it. The Prime Minister is very much part of the usual channels. However, we shall all have to consider the issue. I undertake to give the matter consideration and to make a statement when we come back.

COLLEGES OF EDUCATION (WALES)

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Oakes—to answer Question No. 44.
The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

44. Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if she will now make a statement on the future of colleges of education in Wales.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Gordon Oakes): In my right hon. Friend's statement to the House on 24th January she proposed the ending of initial teacher training in the Polytechnic of Wales at Barry and the West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education at Swansea. Since then, in consultation with my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, very careful consideration has been given to the many representations made on the subject, including deputations from Welsh Members of Parliament, the Welsh Joint Education Committee,

and the West Glamorgan and Mid-Glamorgan local education authorities.
The process of review has been a very difficult one since the constraints which originally prompted the original proposal to cease initial teacher training at two colleges in Wales remain in force and cannot lightly be set aside. Having listened carefully, however, to all the arguments that have been deployed as to the special circumstances of the Principality, it has been decided to allow a certain relaxation of those constraints in order to permit a modification of the original proposals.
It has been concluded that, with great regret, the proposed withdrawal of initial teacher training from the Polytechnic of Wales must be confirmed but that teacher training in the West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education may be retained with an allocation of 300 places. Although a small increase of 50 on the total allocation of places to Wales—to 2,900—can be conceded, any larger increase could not be justified.
In order therefore to accommodate the retention of teacher training in Swansea it is necessary to ask the following colleges in Wales to surrender 50 places each compared with the provisional allocations which my right hon. Friend announced in January: Gwent College of Higher Education, Caerleon; South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education, Cardiff; Bangor Normal College; Llandaff College of Education; and St. Mary's College, Bangor.
I am arranging for the allocation of places for all teacher-training institutions in Wales compared with the proposals announced on 24th January to be circulated in the Official Report. The responsible authorities are being informed of the decisions affecting their respective institutions.

Mr. Anderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the West Glamorgan County Council is delighted at the reprieve and at the reduced level, which is for it the basic minimum level of provision in the county? Will he confirm that the role played by local representatives, led by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Industry, the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), showed that the previous recommendations would have destroyed the concept of the West Glamorgan


Institute of Higher Education and dealt a blow to in-service training in the county, which is extremely highly developed?

Mr. Oakes: Yes, I confirm that. As my hon. Friend knows, it was a difficult decision between the various colleges. However, the deputations, especially the one led by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, in whose constituency I believe the college is situated, convinced me that it would be wrong, especially on in-service grounds, to close the institution altogether.

Mr. St. John-Stevas: I congratulate the Minister on the consultations that he has carried out and on the care with which he carried them out. I express relief that it has been possible within the global figure of college of education places in Wales to make these modifications, especially in relation to Swansea, although we regret that it has been impossible to maintain the teaching provision at the Polytechnic of Wales at Barry. I express the hope that the Church in Wales has been better treated in this respect than the Church of England in an earlier operation. We hope that teacher training in the Principality will now be able to go ahead without further upheavals.

Mr. Oakes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his original remarks. As for Barry, it is with great regret that we must proceed with the proposal to close the teacher-training establishment within the polytechnic. However, I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that to have kept it open would have meant reducing teacher-training places at the other colleges to such an extent that it might well have made some of them unviable. As for the position of the Church, the hon. Gentleman will know that the figures for Trinity remain unchanged.

Mr. Fred Evans: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will cause great bitterness and resentment in the county of Mid-Glamorgan and in large areas of Gwent? Is he further aware that in the Polytechnic of Wales we have an institution that has built itself in a very short time to a standard in the taking of CNNA degree courses equivalent to that prevailing in many provincial universi-

ties, and that its teacher-training side is regarded as an integral part of it? Does my hon. Friend agree that it is the wish of an eminent academic staff of the teaching force of South-East Wales and the wish of the students themselves who attend the institution that it should continue in being? Will my hon. Friend undertake that further representations will be received from the bodies concerned?

Mr. Oakes: I should emphasise that the decision regarding the Polytechnic of Wales is in no way a reflection on its academic standards, which are of the highest. Regrettably, it is in the same position as many colleges in England—where good colleges have had to be closed. Otherwise there would be an over-production of teachers.
As to further representations, I think that we must finalise the position now for the sake of the colleges themselves. I know that this will cause resentment in some parts of Wales, as indeed the closure of colleges in England caused resentment. I ask the House to understand that it is necessary to take this action. Otherwise there could be as many as 60,000 teachers heading for certain unemployment by the mid-1980s.

Mr. Hooson: Is the Minister aware that the selection will cause some surprise in Wales because of the great tradition of the Barry Training College, which has become a part of the Polytechnic of Wales? Will he confirm that the reduction of 50 places in each of the other five colleges will be reviewed from time to time in view of the changing situation and demands in Wales, particularly for colleges specialising in teaching the Welsh language?

Mr. Oakes: The figures will always be reviewed. For example, if the birth rate were suddenly to increase, the places might be restored. The difficulty of the Barry Training College is similar to the difficulty at Bangor Normal, St. Mary's, Trinity and so on.

Mr. Ifor Davies: Is the Minister aware that his favourable reconsideration regarding Swansea will be well received throughout South-West Wales? Equally, is he aware that it will be well received by the University College at Swansea, which has such a close working relationship with the new college of education?

Mr. Wyn Roberts: After the withdrawal of 50 places from each of the five colleges of Gwent, South Glamorgan, Bangor Normal, Llandaff and St. Mary's, Bangor, will the Minister give an absolute assurance that the future of those colleges is assured?

Mr. Oakes: We are hoping that by keeping to these figures in both England and Wales we shall create certainty within the colleges that these are the figures and that another review will not be taking place in two or three years' time. One cannot give an assurance to the mid-1980s or anything of that nature, but it is certainly our intention not to have any change in these numbers in the foreseeable future.

Mr. Kinnock: As the Barry Polytechnic has the highest entry standards and the fastest-growing developmental standards of any Welsh training colleges, does my hon. Friend accept that this decision is educationally irresponsible and totally unsupportable? There is widespread feeling in Wales that this decision has been reached as a concession to minority cultural interests that have no wide-scale understanding of the teaching needs of Wales.

Mr. Oakes: The decision has not been made because of any prejudice due to minority interests. I had to be aware of the role of the Welsh language in Wales. Due consideration had to be and was given to that matter.
Regarding the college itself, that part of Wales is better served with teacher-training centres where in-service teacher training can be carried on alongside initial training than in the West Glamorgan area. That was why West Glamorgan was preserved, albeit with a very small number of entrants.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Does the Minister accept that his decision has withdrawn from the major education authority of Mid-Glamorgan the allocation of essential in-service training and initial training places? Will he look again at this arbitrary figure of 50 to be withdrawn from each of the other colleges? Will he also look specifically at the effect of this withdrawal on the viability of colleges in North Wales and say that both in-service training provision and initial

training at the North-East Wales Institute is to be retained?

Mr. Oakes: There is no change in the figures for North-East Wales. In North Wales generally, 100 places from the two colleges in the city of Bangor were necessary. Had Barry remained open, we should have had to reduce the colleges in North-East Wales to the point of non-viability.

Mr. Tom Ellis: Is my hon. Friend aware that his statement will be accepted generally in Wales as an admirable all-Wales compromise and that the antidevolutionists who are trying to raise some kind of North-South Wales issue out of a genuine problem have been confounded by this decision?

Mr. Oakes: I did not take that matter into consideration. I tried to look at the matter on educational, geographical and in-service training grounds and on the use of premises particularly in a Welsh context where there are two languages, not one, to deal with.

Following is the information:


REVISED PROVISION FOR TEACHER EDUCATION IN WALES IN 1981



Number of teacher training places in 1981



Revised July 1977
As at 24th January 1977


Polytechnic of Wales, Barry
Nil
Nil


West Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education, Swansea
300
Nil


Gwent College of Higher Education, Caerleon
450
500


South Glamorgan Institute of Higher Education, Cardiff
550
600


Bangor Normal
350
400


Llandaff College of Education (in University College, Cardiff)
200
250


St. Mary's College, Bangor(in University College of North Wales, Bangor)
150
200


North East Wales Institute of Higher Education, Cartrefle
400
400


TrinityCollege,Carmarthen
500
500


Total
2,900
2,850

DEVOLUTION

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement on devolution.
In the light of the debates in the House and other representations, the Government have decided that new proposals should be brought forward for devolution. I wish to inform the House of the main changes we now propose.
The Government will introduce two Bills next Session to provide, respectively, for devolution to Scotland and to Wales. The Government have always been fully and equally committed to the achievement of devolution for both countries and we shall present the two Bills to the House on that understanding and on the same basis. We believe that the House would welcome the separate consideration of what are dissimilar proposals.
For any question relating to the interpretation or application of the devolution statutes, we shall now propose that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council should be the final court of reference, as well as undertaking the pre-Assent scrutiny of Scottish Assembly Bills. The Judicial Committee will thereby finally be the sole court determining questions on vires.
We believe that it is possible to dispense with certain of the detailed controls on the actions of the devolved administrations to provide more clear-cut arrangements. We shall propose that the Government's general reserve powers should be available only in cases where a matter is prejudiced for which there is no devolved responsibility. The powers will remain as an essential safeguard to protect matters which are not to be devolved—for example, defence, trade, the economy and industrial relations.
We shall omit the proposed statutory powers to limit rents and prescribe model rent and rebate schemes. We shall no longer provide for the Secretary of State's consent being necessary for changes in the pay and pensions of Scottish teachers and for the pensions arrangements of a number of public bodies in both Scotland and Wales.
As for the Assemblies themselves, we have concluded that they should be left

much freer to arrange and to conduct their business and we shall accordingly omit a number of the provisions in Part II of the Scotland and Wales Bill. On reconsideration, we believe that members of the Scottish Executive should have the title of Secretary and the head of the Executive the title of First Secretary. We shall also propose a power of premature dissolution for the Scottish Assembly dependent on a vote of at least two-thirds of its Members. We no longer propose the creation of Assembly Commissioners for the investigation of complaints against the new administration and their officials and we shall propose that the Scottish Assembly should be able to legislate on this matter.
We shall also propose the reservation of responsibility for the pay and pensions of teachers and of National Health Service employees in Wales.
Given the expressed concerns about the structure of local government in Wales, we shall propose that the Welsh Assembly should have a statutory duty to review the structure of local government.
The Government are continuing to develop these and other proposals for inclusion in new legislation for introduction next Session. The House will, of course, wish to consider them fully when they are expressed in legislative form and can provide the basis for debate. We have already made clear that in any future debate on proportional representation for the devolved Assemblies there will be a free vote on this side of the House.
In our review we have paid particular attention to the arrangements for financing the devolved services. A White Paper is being published this afternoon setting out our conclusions and the background to them. It sets out measures which we have in mind to improve the working of the block fund arrangements. First, we shall propose to the devolved administrations the possibility of setting up an independent advisory board with the task of improving the information base for financial discussions. Secondly, we shall propose a new approach for settling levels of devolved expenditure. The new system would relate the total of devolved expenditure to comparable expenditure elsewhere in the country and would establish a percentage formula which would be maintained for a number of years, as an alternative to negotiations every year


with the devolved administrations. The Government will wish to take account of the views of the devolved administrations on the acceptability and operation of this formula-based system.
The House will wish to know that we have not identified any satisfactory form of independent revenue-raising power for the devolved administrations. But if the new administrations wish to put forward proposals for a tax power to supplement the block fund within the conditions set out in the White Paper and the administrations were prepared to meet the costs, the Government will consider such proposals sympathetically.
Additionally, on the establishment of the new administrations, it is the Government's intention to seek their agreement to the establishment of Joint Councils for Scotland and for Wales, on which representatives of the Government and the new administrations could consult as necessary on matters of common concern. These would provide a valuable means of ensuring continuing co-operation and consultation.
In relation to England, consultations are continuing on the basis of our consultative document "Devolution: The English Dimension", which the Government published at the end of last year.
The Government believe that the changes now proposed will result in simpler and more clear-cut arrangements for devolution and firmly secure the interests of the people of the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Pym: At least we have the acceptance, however belated and reluctant, of the case we put forward from these Benches for separate Bills. Will the Leader of the House undertake to publish these Bills in White Paper or some other form earlier than would normally be the case so that we may see the full impact of what he has outlined?
We on these Benches remain opposed to the Assembly for Wales because the people of Wales do not want it. Apart from dividing the original Bill into two, the new proposals are essentially tinkering with the ill-fated Scotland and Wales Bill. It is a case of a minor operation instead of major surgery.
On the rejection of revenue-raising powers, may we take it that the Lord

President has succeeded in persuading Liberal Members that their full and detailed proposals, which lately they regarded as essential, are simply unworkable and impracticable? Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why there is no mention of, let alone any solution to, the single most contentious problem to arise in our debates on the Bill; that is, the role and the number of Members of Parliament representing Scottish and Welsh constituences? Is the Leader of the House aware that a Speaker's Conference has now been established which would seem a most appropriate body to consider this basic matter? Why is it that, in spite of the Government's recognition of the profound implications upon England of their devolution proposals, they have failed after nearly a year of consideration to put before the House their conclusions in relation to England?
There will be great disappointment that one of the genuinely new proposals in the statement is for the establishment of joint councils and advisory boards, which appear to be yet another tier of governmental bureaucracy to be imposed upon the people of Wales and Scotland, who already have enough to bear. Does this not all point to the grievous error of not taking an all-party approach on a matter of such vital constitutional importance to the whole of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Foot: On the question of separate Bills, of course a separate approach to the question of devolution has been pressed by many others than Conservative Members. The Government believe that the proposals they are making meet that request. We have no intention of providing a White Paper on the matter. We believe that the next step should be for the House to vote upon these two Bills when they are presented to the House at the beginning of the next Session.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the most contentious question to arise in our earlier debates was that of representation in this House and the form that that representation should take. I am sure that by this time the right hon. Gentleman must have studied the Kilbrandon Report, which came to the same conclusion as we reached on the major in-and-out question which has sometimes been advocated. We have taken that conclusion into account.
The right hon. Gentleman has suggested that the whole matter should go back to pre-Kilbrandon days. If we had adopted his proposals for a Select Committee on the matter, so far from it being possible to have examined the matter afresh in the light of the decisions that the House had already reached, we should have had to abandon the proposals for devolution completely. No doubt that is what the right hon. Gentleman wanted. Many of his hon. Friends have come out quite clearly and said that that is what they want.
I see that the Chairman of the Conservative Party in Scotland said at the weekend that what he wanted from the Conservative Party in order to rescue a few votes there was some clear decision on these matters. Certainly we have not had that from the right hon. Gentleman. The Government are proposing a way in which we may proceed to carry out the will which the House expressed on this matter when there was a majority of over 40 for these general proposals on devolution.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the question of the order in which the two Bills will be taken? If, regretfully and inequitably, the Welsh Bill comes second, will he give an assurance that it is the Government's intention to get that Bill through all its stages in the next Session? Secondly, will he say whether the Government intend to hold referendums in the two countries after the Bills receive the Royal Assent?

Mr. Foot: As I have said, the Government regard their commitments to Scotland and to Wales as being on the same basis. It is on that basis that we shall present the legislation to the House. The exact order in which the Bills will be presented has not been decided, but it may be that the Scottish Bill will come first. If the Scottish Bill came first, the Welsh Bill would came very soon afterwards. We are equally committed to both Bills. The House of Commons voted for devolution for both Scotland and Wales when it had the opportunity of doing so. I have no doubt that it will do so again when the opportunity is freshly presented. Thereafter, as we have already made the commitment, there will be the opportunity, as we provided in our previous

legislation and as we shall provide in this legislation, for the people of Scotland and Wales to be able to vote upon the legislation when it is passed through this House.

Mr. Pym: Although he may not have intended it, the Leader of the House has misrepresented my words and my proposals, and I am not prepared to allow that. I have not suggested that we should go back to pre-Kilbrandon days. I have suggested a realistic, sensible and practical approach to tackle the real problems thrown up by devolution, and my proposals are that the matter should be looked at from an all-party point of view. I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman said about me, and it is not right that the message should get out in a misrepresented form.

Mr. Foot: There is no question of misrepresentation. Anyone who considers the right hon. Gentleman's proposals for the terms of reference of a Select Committee will see that they raise all the major questions that were discussed by the Kilbrandon Committee. His proposals would reopen all the major questions, many of which had been voted upon when we were discussing these devolution matters before. The Government believe that they have made considerable progress since those times. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman should apply himself to the demand by the Chairman of the Scottish Conservative Party for something clear and decisive on this matter. We have had something clear and decisive from the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), but we have not had that from the Leader of the Conservative Party or from the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym).

Mr. David Steel: Does the Lord President agree that an all-party approach on this subject, while no doubt desirable, would be realistic only if all parties were committed to the principle of devolution? Since that commitment is lacking from the Conservatives it is necessary to proceed with the legislation. For our part we accept the new package. For Wales, the statutory obligation to review local government is extremely important. For Scotland, the removal of many of the override powers is a great advance on the previous proposals, although we should like to go further and will press


the right hon. Gentleman further during the Committee stage.
Lastly, on taxation, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is likely that in the years ahead the Assembly may wish to pursue this with the Government of the day and is likely to raise the cry of "No representation without taxation"?

Mr. Foot: I think that when the country reads the White Paper that we are publishing on finance and taxation, it will see why the Government have reached the conclusions they have reached on this subject. We believe that the proposals we are making on these financial matters are of extreme importance for the maintenance of the unity of the United Kingdom. But we certainly agree, as I have said in my statement and as is indicated in the White Paper, that when the Assemblies are established, if they wish to raise further questions of this nature, we shall be prepared to discuss them within the terms that I have indicated.
As to the simplification of the Bill, I believe that it is greatly improved on that account and that it could be made more workable in that respect.
I fully accept what the right hon. Gentleman says about Wales, and the statement we have made concerning the statutory requirement for the Welsh Assembly to proceed and to produce proposals on local government is of great importance. All those who represent Wales will know how unpopular are the local government proposals which have been imposed there. All of them will know that no such proposals would ever have been imposed if a Welsh Assembly had been in existence at the time.
I believe that the only way in which we can proceed to deal with this matter satisfactorily for the United Kingdom is for those who are in favour of the principle of devolution—and that is a majority in this House—to proceed to carry that principle into practice. There are, of course, some who are opposed to it in principle. They can express their views, but they are a minority in this House, and, I am sure, a minority in Wales and a minority in Scotland.

Mr. Heller: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us will be no happier

at having two Bills which could lead to the break-up of Britain than we were with the one Bill that we had on the previous occasion?
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that we shall look carefully at this very very complicated matter? On the basis of what he has said, it seems to me to be even more complicated than it was before, but I am open to conviction on that.
May I ask my right hon. Friend why he did not refer the matter to a referendum, when particularly the Scottish Labour Party at its last conference asked that a referendum be held prior to the question of devolution being settled?

Mr. Foot: The best piece of news in the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is his statement that he is open to conviction.

Mr. Heffer: That is not the issue.

Mr. Foot: We shall have to see. 1 assure my hon. Friend that when he looks at the proposals and at the legislation he will see that we have very considerably simplified the way in which devolution is to proceed. I believe that that can be of benefit to the House not merely in the discussion of these matters but in the carrying through of devolution.
It is perfectly true, as my hon. Friend says, that the conference of the Scottish Labour Party passed a resolution in favour of a referendum to take place at an early date. That is what was passed. Some of us then put the case—I still think it right; I have put it many times in this House, and I put it again now—that a referendum taken in those circumstances would be on such imprecise issues that I do not believe that it could give good advice to the House, to the country or to anyone else. The proper way for a referendum to be taken is in the way that we have proposed, and that is when the Bill has passed through the House of Commons; otherwise no one would know what the referendum was about.

Mr. Reid: Why do not the Government accept that the Scottish nation, like any other nation, has a right to benefit fiscally from its own resources? At a time when Scotland is keeping the United Kingdom afloat, why should at least part


of our wealth not be used for the welfare of the Scottish people? Why have not the Government listened to their Liberal comrades, whose official view, at least north of the border, is that 50 per cent. of oil revenues should go to the Scottish Assembly?
Lastly, will the Government take note that there is no question of this Bench being seduced like: the Liberals or the Ulster Unionists and that our attitudes next Session will be determined by whether there is an early guillotine and whether that Guillotine is itself the subject of a vote of confidence?

Mr. Foot: I ask the hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Reid), like the rest of the House, and indeed the country, to study the paper that we are publishing on the financial aspects of the matter. All the questions that the hon. Gentleman poses are dealt with, and they are dealt with on the basis that we are determined to retain and sustain the unity of the United Kingdom. That is why we are not prepared to accept the proposals made on this matter by the Scottish National Party. It will have to make up its mind, when we come to the discussions in the House, whether to vote for the establishment of a directly elected Scottish Assembly. The Labour Party is the only party in the State which is putting forward proposals in a context which can hold the United Kingdom together, and that is what we shall be voting about.

Mr. William Ross: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that to most Scottish Members of all parties his statement is welcome, and that the decision to proceed with devolution through separate Bills is eminently sensible and very welcome indeed in Scotland?
Bearing in mind that every political party in Scotland a t the last election—despite the retreat from Perth led by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor), who kidded the Leader of the Opposition as to Scottish feeling—was in favour of a directly elected Assembly, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the proposals are an improvement on the last Bill? We have got rid of the rather timid and grandmotherly bespattering of the Bill with reserve powers, and the simplification will be to the credit of the House.

Mr. Foot: I thank my right hon. Friend for his remarks. I ask the whole House to study these proposals carefully, because we believe that they are of great importance for the future of the whole country.

Mr. Gwynfor Evans: Since the Government have yielded so much to the opponents of every and any measure of decentralisation of power to the people of Wales, including having two Bills—and thus giving a slap in the face not only to the Welsh Trades Union Congress but even to the Labour Party in Wales—will the Government now show their determination to carry the Welsh Bill through all its stages by insisting that the two Bills shall run concurrently? Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that there should be an early timetable motion? Thirdly, and above all, will he accept that the matter should be made one of confidence?

Mr. Foot: It is perfectly true that a considerable number of people in Wales, including representatives of the Labour Party in Wales, have not wished for two separate Bills and have urged that we should continue to present this matter to the House in one Bill. For the very reasons that the Government presented one Bill on the original occasion, I believe that they can put a strong case. But we have had to take into account—and quite rightly—the representations made from many quarters, including those made from many quarters during the debates in the House. There were certainly representations from the Liberal Party, but from many others as well.
I emphasise that, although we shall present two Bills, we are determined that both Bills shall go forward, and we regard ourselves as equally committed to the proposition of devolution for Wales as for Scotland.

Urwin: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that, despite the modifications which we understand will be included in the White Paper, his statement is viewed by certain Members of this House with something less than enthusiasm? Is he aware that the statement will be less warmly welcomed in the Northern Region? In view of the vital importance of the constitutional aspect, has my right hon. Friend completely closed his mind to conducting a referendum before the new Bill is presented?

Mr. Foot: I have said on many occasions that I think that a referendum before we proceed to the passage of the Bill through the House is an unlikely course. I believe that it would be an unwise course to pursue. That is my feeling, and I have not heard any argument to the contrary. I ask my hon. Friend, who has raised very important issues on behalf of the North-East, to consider what is set out in the White Paper on the financial aspects. If he does that, he will see that we have been seeking to protect unity and fairness in the United Kingdom. He will see that the principle of treating each part of the United Kingdom fairly is improved in our financial proposals. I believe that the more the proposals are studied, the more the House will advance the support that it gave to us at the time of the Second Reading of the measure earlier in the Session.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Do the Government intend that the Second Reading of the Welsh Bill will be held in the House or in the Welsh Grand Committee?

Mr. Foot: Of course the Second Reading of such an important constitutional matter should be held in the House.

Mr. Sillars: Will the Leader of the House confirm that this is Westminster's last chance to reach a reasonable devolution settlement? Will he confirm that if the Bill falls next Session the only option then open to the Scottish people will be a vote for independence? Will he now answer the question that he inadvertently dodged when it was put to him by two Members from the Scottish National Party? Do the Government intend to make the timetable motion a vote of confidence, knowing that the Bill cannot pass without it?

Mr. Foot: In reply to my hon. Friend's second question, I say that we are determined to carry these measures through the House of Commons. The House will see the Government's determination when we meet in the new Session.
It has never been the custom for propositions of the nature of those in my hon. Friend's first question to be put to the House so many months in advance. It is certainly the intention of the Government to use all their power to get the measure through because it is of great importance

for the future of the United Kingdom. As to talking about the last chance, I would not use such language. If Westminster refuses and slams the door on any further proposals for devolution, it could be a great disaster for the United Kingdom as a whole.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Does the Leader of the House accept that his new proposals do nothing more for the people of Scotland and Wales but that they are more likely than those that were defeated in arguments in the House to lead to the division of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Foot: The right hon. Gentleman is quite mistaken about what happened in the House. Not only was the Second Reading carried by a substantial majority, but on all the issues of principle on which there were votes the Government gained strong support. I believe also that these proposals carry further and improve our previous proposals. The right hon. Gentleman does not like that because he has been opposed to devolution all along. This is what the Conservative Party is trying to hide from the country. We have a majority for these proposals and we have the right to carry them through.

Mr. Buchan: I do not wish to follow the apocalyptic language of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) about the frivolity of the SNP. Nevertheless, does my right hon. Friend agree that there is an element of danger in this situation? Does he agree that the proper way of ensuring a successful Scottish Assembly, if the House and the Scottish people desire it, is that it should be put to the fullness of decision through a referendum and that that cannot be left to "yea" or "nay" of an assembly? Does he agree that it must also involve a decision about whether we wish to go independent? That was the decision of the Scottish Labour Party and that must be remembered by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend and many others who have over the years spoken about this subject. It is not new. There are great dangers involved. One of them is if Westminster and hon. Members who represent other parts of the United Kingdom neglect the seriousness of the situation. That would be tragic for the whole of the country.
I doubt whether the issue could be settled in the way in which my hon. Friend suggests. There would be dangers in trying to settle in that way. I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and with what was agreed by the House, that there should be a referendum in Scotland that would put to the people the precise question whether they accept what is proposed and has been agreed by the House.

Several hon. Members: Several hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: I propose to call three hon. Members from each side. Obviously I cannot call everyone who wishes to speak today. It has already been announced that there will be a debate on the Queen's Speech on this matter when we return.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is difficult to judge so quickly the details of the proposals. Does the Leader of the House accept that to the majority in Scotland who want devolution, not only in the interests of Scotland but in the interests of the future integrity of the United Kingdom, his proposals are a considerable step forward on the original proposals? To that extent and particularly because of the clearer division of powers and the role of the Privy Council, they will be welcomed in Scotland.
To what extent is there to be a change in the distribution of power under the new proposals? Alternatively, is the change simply in the actual division of the power already proposed to be devolved?

Mr. Foot: I am grateful to the hon. Member for the way in which he has put his question. The distribution of power remains much the same as in the original measure but there are substantial changes in the proposals.

Mr. Abse: Since the Leader of the House has abrogated to himself and other Cabinet Ministers the right of a free vote on the direct elections issue, is he aware that Back Benchers will take for themselves that right of a free vote on a Bill which is certainly as important to their constituent; and is of as much constitutional importance as direct elections? Since my right hon. Friend has had an open mind on the referendum issue and on separating the two Bills, will he now open his mind on another issue? Will he ensure that at the end of

a long debate the people of Wales get an opportunity to express their opinion on the Bill by means of a White Paper and detailed consideration of the measure so that we have a referendum that would save the time of the House?

Mr. Foot: I have answered the second part of the question about the timing of a referendum, not only today but on many previous occasions. I do not believe that that would be a satisfactory way of settling the matter. Indeed, I believe that it could give rise to more confusion.
There is a difference between the proposals for devolution for Wales and Scotland and the direct elections issue. Devolution was part of the manifesto on which my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) was elected and returned to the House. That makes a difference.

Mr. George Gardiner: Why is the Lord President still proposing to enact an injustice under which an over-representative number of Scottish Members in this House will exercise legislative influence over very important matters in the English regions while neither we nor they will have any comparable influence over identical matters within their own constituencies?

Mr. Foot: The reason is that if we are to have a properly devolved system it requires some such arrangement. An alternative method is to have the in-and-out arrangement under which some Members of Parliament have some powers and others have second-rate status. I have always argued in this House that I think that that is wrong. That solution was turned down by the Kilbrandon Commission, and rightly so. What the hon. Gentleman is saying, in effect, is that no form of devolution is possible. We reject that view entirely. We believe that if that view were accepted we should indeed be heading for the break-up of the United Kingdom. But we are not prepared to accept that. We believe that a scheme of properly organised devolution can be carried through effectively.

Mr. MacFarquhar: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there are many on the Government side of the House who support his proposals and the revised form in which they have now come but still see them as pandering to the nationalist party sentiments of Wales and Scotland


so long as comparable proposals for the English regions are not brought forward? Secondly, will my right hon. Friend reconsider the use of the rather unusual title of "First Secretary", albeit that it was held by my Labour predecessor in Belper, and perhaps consider the use of the title "Chief Minister"?

Mr. Foot: I must confess that I had not thought of the Belper precedent when the picked on this title. I hope that it will not be a deterrent in that sense and will not deter others from thinking that this is a perfectly appropriate and proper description for the title. As to my hon. Friend's general remarks, of course I understand that he thinks that we must look afresh at these matters. We have looked afresh at them very carefully. What we have proposed can be a great improvement on what we have offered previously, and the House should look at the proposals on that basis. I think that my hon. Friend will see that if he looks at them carefully.

Mr. Sproat: Is it not incredible that on the very day that it is announced that unemployment figures in Scotland have reached the appalling total of 194,000 the Government are proposing to spend £30 million a year on white elephants that will not create a single extra job except for bureaucrats?

Mr. Foot: We know that the hon. Gentleman has always been a bitter opponent of devolution. Our view is that if the House of Commons were to subscribe to that same view, that would be the worst possible danger for the United Kingdom as a whole. We believe that when these proposals are presented to the House in the autumn, they can be carried through by the kind of majority with which we carried the previous Second Reading.

Mr. Conlan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this cosmetic treatment of the Bill that was so ignominiously destroyed in this Session will not stand a chance of getting through in the next Session unless there is some equal treatment for the English regions?

Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend asks about the English regions. I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Belper (Mr. MacFarquhar) for not having replied to

this point previously. As I said in my statement, we are still awaiting the general representations that may come from different areas of England about what they might wish themselves to have, in the form either of regional development or of changes in local government. However, we consider that it would be an absurdity, and, indeed, highly dangerous, too, to hold up any proposals or continuance with the proposals for Scotland and for Wales until these matters are resolved. I think that that is well understood throughout the country.

Mr. Bagier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hesitate to rise on this point, because I understand that you try to be fair on all matters. In matters concerning devolution, I know that you have done your best, but because of the content of the statement of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, laying stress, as he has done, on Scottish and Welsh affairs, I feel that as only two Members from the Northern Region have been called to ask supplementary questions about devolution that seems to place a problem in your hands. I also appreciate that there are other hon. Members who represent various English regions who feel equally aggrieved. May I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that on an important statement of this nature, when there is only a short time in which to call hon. Members for supplementary questions, perhaps an extension of time could be allowed so that those who represent the English regions could be called to ask questions?

Mr. Speaker: It is always difficult when so many right hon. and hon. Members wish to question a statement. We have given 40 minutes to it. There is an enormous amount of business before the House, including the business that is on everyone's mind, to which we are wanting to turn. We have had an indication that in the debate on the Queen's Speech, which usually lasts a few days, this matter is likely to emerge again. I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

STANDING ORDER NO. 9

Mr. Speaker: I have had an application for a debate under Standing Order No. 9. I must tell the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley)


that he should have given notice of it before 12 o clock. That was possible, because the matter to which the hon. Gentleman wishes to draw attention was mentioned on the tapes in the House at 11.10 a.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That if, at this day's sitting, proceedings on the Motions relating to Conduct of Members are not disposed of before Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker shall at that hour proceed to put any Question already proposed from the Chair; any outstanding Amendments selected by Mr. Speaker and any outstanding Motions may thereupon be moved, and with the Questions necessary to dispose of such Amendments and Motions shall be put forthwith.—[Mr. Bates.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Supplementary Benefits (General) Regulations 1977 (S.I. 1977, No. 1141) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Bates.]

INDEPENDENCE OF HOUSE OF COMMONS

4.36 p.m.

Mr. Fred Silvester: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide that charges on the public revenue relating to the internal management of the House of Commons shall not require to be recommended from the Crown; and for connected purposes.
Few hon. Members would choose this occasion to raise a Ten-Minute Bill. I shall, therefore, be extremely brief, but I wish to make one simple point, which is the purpose of the Bill, and it is not unreasonable on this occasion, which is devoted to House of Commons matters, that it should be made today.
The purpose of the Bill is to rectify a practice that has continued over many years and about which the Government still do nothing. The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has today cited an example which has arisen as a pinprick arising out of this situation.
Briefly, the position is that this House has no right to initiate expenditure. That is regarded as a bulwark of the constitution and I would not challenge it generally, but it also applies to matters relating to this House. It has always seemed to me an absurdity that this House should not have control over its own expenditure and that it should be constantly referred to civil servants and members of the Treasury and largely to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It seems to me an improper control over the affairs of the House. It is about time that it was put right.
The report of the right hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bottomley) has been before the House since 1974. The Government said that they would be accepting its main conclusions. I personally do not think that the report goes far enough.
I am well aware that this Bill has no chance of succeeding. Therefore, I shall pipe down now. However, I hope that by raising the matter at the end of this Session I shall at least make the plea that when the Government come to draw up their business for next Session, they


will take seriously the implementation of the Bottomley proposals.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Fred Silvester.

INDEPENDENCE OF HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. Fred Silvester: Mr. Fred Silvester accordingly presented a Bill to provide that charges on the public revenue relating to the internal management of the House of Commons shall not require to be recommended from the Crown; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 181.]

CONDUCT OF MEMBERS

Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House to move, "That the Report from the Select Committee on Conduct of Members be now considered", perhaps I may explain to the House that our practice in debates concerning conduct of Members is for such a motion to be moved in order to enable those Members whose conduct is in question to address the House first. It is our custom that when each Member has concluded his speech he withdraws from the Chamber.
I remind the House that it is also our custom that these speeches should be heard in silence and without interruption.
Thereafter, I propose that the three following motions agreeing with the Report of the Select Committee in so far as it relates to each of the Members concerned should be debated, together with the amendments that I have selected. These are listed on the Order Paper.

The first motion is,
That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee in so far as it relates to Mr. John H. Cordle.

The amendment that I have selected for debate is Amendment (a), leave out 'agrees with' and insert 'takes note of'.

The second motion is,
That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee in so far as it relates to Mr. Reginald Maudling.
The following amendments have been selected for debate: Amendment (c), leave out 'agrees with' and insert takes note of'. Amendment (g), at end add
'and that Mr. Maudling he expelled this House.'.
Amendment (h), at end add
'and since his conduct was inconsistent with the standards the House is entitled to expect from its Members suspends him from membership of this House for six months and suspends his salary as a Member for that period; these suspensions to be Standing Orders of the House'.
The third motion is,
That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee in so far as it relates to Mr. Albert Roberts.

I have selected the following amendments for debate:

Amendment (i), leave out 'agrees with' and insert 'takes note of'.

Amendment (l), at end add
'and that Mr. Roberts be expelled this House.'.
Amendment (m), at end add
'and since his conduct was inconsistent with the standards the House is entitled to expect from its Members suspends him from membership of this House for six months and suspends his salary as a Member for that period; these suspensions to be Standing Orders of the House'.
Lists of the amendments selected are being placed in the "No" Lobby for the convenience of hon. Members. At the conclusion of the debate I shall put each motion separately, first calling the amendments that I have selected to each motion if the proposers wish to move them.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Report from the Select Committee on Conduct of Members be now considered.—[Mr. Foot.].

4.42 p.m.

Mr. Reginald Maudling: I welcome this opportunity to make this statement today. I have been looking forward to this opportunity for a very long time. t is now just over five years since I resigned as Home Secretary and since the investigation began into the affairs of Mr. Poulson. They have been long years for me, and throughout that time I have had to live with suspicion, innuendo and gossip which it has been impossible to dispel. One cannot rebut charges that are never formulated. One cannot dispose of evidence that is never produced.
The House should know today what happened in the course of that long investigation, probably the most thorough ever undertaken in this country. On one occasion in July 1975, three years after the investigation began, the police officers concerned came to see me in the specific context of an allegation that Mr. Poulson used bribery to obtain a hospital contract in Malta. These accusations had not been mentioned until two years after I resigned, and the simple fact, which I told them, and which the Select Committee accepts, is that if there was such a bribe, I knew nothing about it.
Apart from that one conversation, at no time throughout the whole five years have the police sought any information whatsoever from me about the affairs of Mr. Poulson. The Department of Trade,

which was investigating what the Select Committee describes as irregularities in the conduct of the companies of which I was chairman or a director, never approached me for any information at any time from the very start to the very end of its investigations. This, I suggest, is a certain measure of the degree to which I was involved in the affairs of Mr. Poulson.
The Select Committee in its Report makes many things clear, and I am deeply grateful to it for doing so. It makes it clear that there was never any suggestion whatsoever of corrupt conduct on my part. It makes it clear, as I have said, that I had no knowledge of any possible bribe. It points out that before accepting Mr. Poulson's invitation I made very extensive inquiries about him. The Select Committee says categorically that there was nothing improper in having a business connection with him or accepting remuneration from him. It acknowledges that if I failed to detect any irregularities on his part it was through no negligence of mine whatsoever.
The Select Committee points out that I disclosed my relationship with Mr. Poulson to all those with whom I dealt outside Parliament, and in particular that it was my invariable rule, when having any dealings with any foreign Government, to inform the local British representative about them in detail, because I believe that that is what Members of Parliament should do. Finally, the Select Committee says that there was no reason to think that I was influenced by any improper motives in the interventions that I made in Parliament in 1967–10 years ago.
As I have said, I am grateful to the Select Committee for making all these things clear, finally and decisively. My only regret is that in the accounts of the Select Committee's Report that have appeared so extensively in the Press there has been no reference to those matters in which the Select Committee vindicated what I did, but only to the things on which it criticised me, and it is to these that I now intend to turn.
The Select Committee's first criticism is that I should have disclosed an interest when intervening in the House on matters relating to Malta in 1967. The reason why I did not do so is set out in my letter to Lord Maybray-King, which


appears in Appendix 70, and with the permission of the House I should like to quote it. I wrote:
The simple question is whether I had a direct pecuniary interest in the outcome of the debate, which I should have declared. I do not see how this could in fact have been so, because Mr. Poulson's appointment had already been made, and because the Government made it quite clear at the beginning of the debate, that the existing aid programme from which the Gozo Hospital was to be financed, would not in any circumstances be affected. If the hospital had been designed for use by British forces, or if the withdrawal of British forces would have meant the abandonment of the project, then clearly 1 would have had a direct pecuniary interest, but as neither of these conditions pertained, I do not see how this could have been so.
I told Lord Maybray-King that I should warmly welcome any views that he cared to express, and I went on to say:
I should perhaps add that there is no question of my deliberately concealing anything, as I had already announced my interest in the hospital at a press conference in Malta, and specifically brought it to the attention of the British High Commissioner there.
I still believe that to be a correct statement of the position under the conventions of this House in 1967, and Lord Maybray-King, who was then Speaker, agreed with me, though I must accept, of course, that the Select Committee does not.
I shall not endeavour to argue the issue. There are several points in its Report on which I think the Select Committee has been misinformed, but I am grateful once again to the Committee for making it clear, first, that I was following what I genuinely believed to be the rules of the House at the time and, secondly, that there was no question of concealing anything: if someone wants to conceal something, he does not announce it to the Press and to the British Government. Thirdly, I wish to note that the Committee does not suggest that in this matter my conduct was in any way inconsistent with the standards that the House is entitled to expect from its Members.
I come to the second point—the accusations made by the Select Committee in paragraph 33 and only about my letter of resignation when I resigned as Home Secretary. I read paragraph 33 with astonishment. Earlier, in paragraph 4, the Committee had said that before reaching its conclusions it had

put to the Members concerned the matters that arose from the evidence they had examined
and that
no new evidence or accusation emerged that was not fully described and put to the Members concerned during their evidence".
The fact is that while the Hansard extract from the Prime Minister's statement was in the bundle of documents before the Committee, it was not mentioned in the list of questions sent to me by the Committee which it asked me to answer. At no time throughout the two hours that I spent with the Committee did any member of it make any mention whatsoever of the statement to me.
The first intimation that I received that the Committee was concerned about my letter of resignation, let alone critical of it, was when I received a copy of its final Report about an hour before it was released to the Press. So I find it a little bewildering that a Select Committee reporting to this House can make a statement which, frankly, is not accurate. The Select Committee did not put to me the matter of my resignation letter. It did not describe to me its accusation. Not one word was said about it at any time by anyone while I was before the Committee.
The effect, of course, is simply this: although everyone has heard the charge that the Committee brings against me and although a number of people have not hesitated to condemn me, no one has yet listened to a single word of my side of the case. That is what I want to put now.
I would ask the House not to endorse this paragraph—this is what I concentrate on—for the simple reason that it just is not true. It is based on a complete misapprehension of the facts, which I shall now explain to the House and which I could have explained so easily to the Committee if only it had asked me to do so.
In paragraph 33 the Committee quotes as the fundamental basis of its accusation against me what purports to be a passage from my letter of resignation to the Prime Minister, which he read at my request to the House. It goes on to say:
It was in these terms, therefore, that Mr. Maudling chose to describe his relationship with Mr. Poulson to the House.
But that is not the case. In fact, it is nothing of the kind. Those are not the


words that I used. They are just some of the words that I used, which is a very different matter. Nor was I seeking to describe, or purporting to describe, to the House my relationship with Mr. Poulson. I was describing the reasons for my resignation, which is a very different matter. To resign as Home Secretary—I think I can say I was effectively Deputy Leader of the Government at the time—is no small thing to have to do.
I am always apprehensive of partial quotations, of the leaving out of words from sentences and putting dots in their place. I cannot understand why the Committee in its report did not quote my letter in full but consigned it to Appendix 65, where the House will find it. What I said in fact to the Prime Minister was:
We discussed the assertions made by Mr. Poulson during his bankruptcy hearing. Among them there was one referring to myself, to the effect that before I accepted his invitation to become Chairman of an export Company, for which post I took no remuneration, he had made a covenant in favour of a charitable appeal which had my support. I do not regard this as matter either for criticism or for investigation. However, there are matters not relating to me that do require investigation, and I entirely agree that this should be carried out in the normal way on behalf of the Director of Public Prosecutions. The difficulty arises that the task must fall upon the Metropolitan Police, and in my particular office as Home Secretary I am Police Authority for the Metropolis. We agreed that it would not be appropriate for me to continue to hold this office while the investigations are being pursued, in view of the fact that my name has been mentioned at the Hearing.
I was referring specifically to only one of Mr. Poulson's assertions, as my words show. I was doing that for a very good reason, which I will explain in a moment. I was resigning as Home Secretary solely because of my connection with the Metropolitan Police. Had I been holding any other Office of State, I would not have resigned. The Prime Minister was good enough to recognise this by offering me an alternative post in his Government, which, as the House is aware, I declined for reasons of a personal character wholly unconnected with Mr. Poulson.
The general nature of my business relations with Mr. Poulson was not before the House in any way. It was before the courts. The Committee has described my business relations with Mr. Poulson. It has made it absolutely clear that there was nothing whatever about them that it

had to criticise. I can find nothing in the Committee's description of my relationship that did not emerge in full in public during the course of those court hearings five years ago.
I was calling attention in my resignation letter to one particular aspect of my relationship with Mr. Poulson, namely, his covenant in favour of the Adeline Genée Theatre. I single out this particular aspect for one very good parliamentary reason, namely, that it had already been singled out and put before the House in a formal motion in the name of the Liberal Party under the heading:
Allegations of Financial Corruption in Public Life calling for investigation".
The motion of the Liberal Party said—
That this House, gravely concerned with the allegations made by Mr. Poulson in the bankruptcy court proceedings that he had paid substantial sums of money to two Back Bench Members of Parliament and another substantial payment to a body at the request of a Privy Councillor, calls upon the Government to order an immediate inquiry.
As I told the then Leader of the Liberal Party, who was and still is a very good friend of mine, I objected to the wording of that motion because it did not say that the body concerned was a charitable body. It gave the clear impression that the money had been paid to me for my own benefit. This was under the heading "Financial Corruption". I made clear in my letter that this was not the case, that the money had gone, not to me, but to a charity and that, in my view, this was a matter neither
for investigation nor for criticism.
This point of view the Select Committee now in its Report has wholly endorsed.
These are the facts of the matter. They do not appear at all in the Report from the Select Committee. No doubt the Committee was not aware of them. There is no reason why the Committee should have been aware of these facts or why it should have remembered them. If it had asked me about them, I could have told the Committee at the time. That, for the first time, is my side of the case.
I understand that, by convention, I ought now to withdraw while the House discusses these issues. This will mean once again that there will be an opportunity for people to criticise me or even


to contradict me while I have no opportunity to hear what they say, still less to reply to what they say. But on this occasion I am confident of the fairness of the House as a whole. I am confident that the House will accept that what I have said is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and that now for the first time the House has before it the facts upon which to reach a judgment.

The right hon. Member then withdrew.

4.58 p.m.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I too, welcome this opportunity to make a statement, just as I welcomed the setting up of a Select Committee. Much has been said concerning the Poulson corruption and bribery. I appreciate that the Select Committee had a very difficult job. I would have preferred it to call us in after preparing its Report.
In my opinion there are one or two small inaccuracies in the Report from the Committee, but I have had very little involvement. I shall deal with one or two points that I think that the House should listen to.
In 1964, when I started to work for John Poulson, he was a highly respected business man. There was no one more highly respected in the North of England. He was a tax commissioner and he was made a freeman of Pontefract in 1966, when my employment with John Poulson was fading out.
I have served 15 years as a councillor on a local authority and have been for many years on hospital boards. But I have had no improper contact whatever with councillors, with local authorities, or with boards of nationalised industries, or with Ministers, or with Parliament. Indeed, I was the governor of a teaching hospital of which the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Sir D. Kaberry) was chairman. I do not know whether he wants to make any comment on my stewardship during the time I was a member of the board.
There is one thing about which I am rather surprised in this report. I gave my evidence on oath, as did John Poulson. I refer to the letter sent to Malta. We are dealing with a period 13 years ago, in the mists of time. On

that letter which I sent to Malta the Committee says that it prefers to accept the evidence of Mrs. Clayton, to the effect that Poulson dictated that letter. Let me put the facts.
A typewriter was brought to my home because my typewriter was broken. If Poulson was to dictate the letter, why bring a typewriter? I made my inquiries during the weekend and the position is as follows. I said that I would send a letter because about 40 people employed by Poulson lived in my constituency. I said that, if the need arose, I was quite willing to make some points to the Maltese Government, bearing in mind that they were a foreign Government. I never knew that British taxpayers' money would be involved. The letter is my phraseology, and this is what happened.
I rang back to Poulson's office to find out what design work he had done abroad. The people there said "We will give you that". I said "You had better speak to Mrs. Clayton and she can take it down in shorthand and it can be appended to the letter". The Select Committee says that it prefers Mrs. Clayton's word and not mine on oath, or Poulson's word on oath. That is something I wanted to bring out.
The second matter concerns my recommending Poulson for membership of the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Economic Planning Council to the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs. The Committee does not produce my letter. It produces a letter of acknowledgement from the Secretary of State, then George Brown. Where is my letter? Who can prove, if my letter is not there, that I did not declare an interest? As far as I can recall, I can honestly say that I do not remember declaring an interest. But I was recommending John Poulson purely because at that time there was no one more highly respected than he was in the North of England. There was nothing wrong with that. I did not go and see the Minister. I did not try to inveigle him in any way and Mr. Poulson was not put on the council. That is all there is in the case against me.
I refer to the Committee's Report once more. In paragraph 37 it says:
Mr. Roberts did not engage in any Parliamentary activity in furtherance of Mr. Poulson's interests, so no question of failure to declare an interest in the House arises in his case.


Just as when a judge is summing up he sways from one side to the other and then there is the sting in the tail, so at the end of its Report the Committee says:
In considering Mr. Roberts's case, it is appropriate to take account of the fact that some of Mr. Roberts's constituents (about 40…) were employed by Mr. Poulson, and that some of the work he undertook for Mr. Poulson was directly in their interests. It has long been recognised that service of this kind to constituents is a substantial part of a Member of Parliament's work, and is something which he has a duty, as well as a right, to provide. This is a factor peculiar to Mr. Roberts's case to which Your Committee considers attention should, in fairness, be drawn.
Those are the two main points concerning me.
What I have been unable to understand from the start is the fact that no point was made that I have had no contact with John Poulson and no contact, except for a brief word with the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I never knew of the right hon. Gentleman's activities. Yet we have been lumped together by the media, which have been seeking to try us for bribery and corruption for over five years. The House ought to realise that.
I know that there has been some reference to punishment. The media have already ruined my wife's health. I feel that on this occasion I have been unjustly treated. Nevertheless, that is my point of view. I have a right to a point of view on this. I live in the constituency I represent. I am local born, home-spun. I have never been able to avoid the local people. I have had to live with them and they have given me tremendous support during the past few days, sending me messages saying "We are with you, Albert".
I have told my story many times. I have always been prepared to come out into the open. I have been on television. From the first moment that this matter arose from the Poulson bankruptcy I have never refused the opportunity to tell my story, because I knew perfectly well that I had no connection with anything in this country.
I come now to the most important point, that concerning standards. The report says of me:

His failure so to inform them in their view constituted conduct inconsistent with the standards which the House is entitled to expect from its Members.
What standards do I take? One can read the biography of Beaverbrook by Taylor. Do I take my standards from there? From where do I take my standards? I have had no book on the do's and don'ts of Parliament. I have been here now for 26 years. I have been abroad with Members from both sides of the House. I have friends on both sides. They know what type of man I am. I am sure that this place, when all is said and done, is as much like an X-ray machine as anything I know.
I have tried to conform as far as I could. I want some ruling on what are the standards. As a member of a local authority for 15 years, I never contravened any standards. I know that at meetings we all declare our interests, but I was never in that position.
I have been completely exonerated by the Select Committee. Nevertheless, we have all been lumped together and I think that this is very unfair. There it is. I feel that I am completely innocent, my family does, my friends do and many of my constituents do. If there are some ways in which I have transgressed in the shallow waters, I offer my apologies to the House, to my hon. Friends and to hon. Gentlemen.

The hon. Member then withdrew.

Question put and agreed to.

Report considered accordingly.

Mr. Speaker: Today's debate is a rare occasion and one of particular concern to the whole House, including Back Benchers. It is not a party occasion. It is a House of Commons occasion. I have received a large number of requests to take part in the debate, including eight from Privy Councillors.
On this occasion above all others I must give a reasonable opportunity for Back Benchers who are not Privy Councillors to speak. The most senior Members of the House will be called, but the 1958–59 Select Committee on Procedure, composed as it was of extremely distinguished Members of the House, recommended that:
As regards debate, the Chair should give due weight to the experience and standing of


Privy Councillors, but should not be bound to call them in preference to other Members.
Although this Report has never been formally agreed to by the House, I intend to follow that recommendation today. I fear that it may mean that some Privy Councillors may not be called. My effort will be to ensure that there is a fair balance of opinion expressed across the Floor of the House.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have heard, as the whole House has, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) say how sad he is that he is not allowed to be present in the House to hear those who wish to make accusations against him, if any there still be, and that if he could catch your eye, he should have the right to reply. You have correctly described what has been the practice of the House in the past, but neither the right hon. Gentleman nor the hon. Gentleman has been ordered by you or by the House to withdraw.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that there are many hon. Members who believe that our two colleagues should be entitled to be present to hear what is said against them and, if they wish to do so, should take their chances of catching your eye at the culmination of these proceedings. I believe that that is a proposition that would appeal to the sense of fairness of this House, and it is not barred by any Standing Order.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has correctly indicated that our custom through the years has been that right hon. or hon. Members whose conduct is under question withdraw from the Chamber. I hope that the House will allow me to consider what has been said. I shall not be leaving the Chair. I intend to stay almost throughout the whole of the debate. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to consider his point of order, I shall make a statement later. I shall intervene briefly in the debate to do so.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. In your consideration you will find that on page 171 of the current edition of "Erskine May" there is a discretion for you to allow that proposition,

more particularly if there is any possibility of further allegations being made in the course of the debate.

Mr. Speaker: I would say to the House that, above all on occasions like this, I am a servant of the House, as I am conscious that I always am. If I discover that it is the general feeling of the House that common fair play—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] It is quite clear to me that the House feels that both the right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Gentleman should be free, if they wish, to sit in the debate. So be it.

5.12 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,
That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee insofar as it relates to Mr. John H. Cordle.
I would first comment on the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) with regard to the ruling that you, Mr. Speaker, have given. It certainly seems to me that it is the desire of the House that both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend should be present in the House to hear what is said. I have no doubt that the original arrangements of the House grew up for good reasons, but I would have thought that the understanding of the House today would be best served if the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend were able to attend and hear the rest of our proceedings. I would not wish to make any objection if that is what is proposed.
I would also say, perhaps to underline—if it is necessary in any sense whatever—what you said at the beginning of your remarks, Mr. Speaker, that this is preeminently a House of Commons matter. It is not a question on which the Government state a view on which Ministers as Ministers state a view. I have tabled motions to agree with the Report of the Select Committee so far as it relates to the various Members concerned. Those motions are made in my own name according to the previous custom of the House. I believe that the motions are the best way for us to deal with the matter. The motions are made by me, but the House is perfectly free to make up its mind on the matter.
When the debate which set up the Select Committee took place a few months ago, many anxieties were expressed about how the Committee would do its work and whether it would be able to carry out its work properly. Whatever view may be taken about the outcome of the inquiry, I believe that most hon. Members—I do not say all—will come to the conclusion that the Select Committee was conducted in a sensible, intelligent and fair manner. It took account of many of the difficulties that were posed in the debate when the Select Committee was set up and also took account of many of the difficulties that have arisen in previous such inquiries.
Some of us were Members of the House at the time of the report of the Lynskey Tribunal in 1949 and some of us believe that the operation of the Lynskey Tribunal in 1949 did the gravest damage to innocent people who were involved in it. For many years, therefore, some of us have tried to ensure that, whatever kind of tribunal or body was set up to deal with these matters, these kinds of debate, if possible, would be avoided. Of course, it is not possible to avoid them altogether.
As has been indicated by the speeches from the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend, both think that they have been unfairly used by the Select Committee. But before we come to discuss that aspect of the matter, I ask the House to contrast what has been done by this Select Committee with what happened in those previous tribunals and investigations. I believe that the case made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the time when the Select Committee was established has been vindicated by the result. I believe that the choice which the House of Commons made at that time—that the proceedings should take place in private but that the publication of the minutes be made afterwards—has been proved to be the right procedure. I believe that it has been fairer to the individuals concerned, including the individuals involved in the inquiry, and that it may be fairer to many other individuals as well.
As a result of that method of procedure we have received a Report from the Select Committee on which sat many respected hon. Members from all the

different parties. That is a further proof that this is not a party question in any sense whatever. I also believe that the Report repudiates the suggestions that in some way or other the House of Commons was going to set up a form of investigation that would be a whitewash or a cover-up. Nothing of the sort has occurred. The investigation has taken place and it was conducted with care, scruple, diligence and speed. All those factors should be taken into account. It should also be taken into account that those who sat on the Committee represented all the different shades of opinion in this House.
Of course, it is not required in any sense whatever that the House of Commons has to accept a report from a Select Committee. The House of Commons is the final arbiter in all such matters and the House of Commons can determine, if it wishes, to alter or change the arrangements or the decisions or advice given by a Select Committee. But I think that the House should approach with some care the idea of rejecting altogether the advice of a Committee on which all parties have been represented and which has examined the evidence in detail.
I believe that all hon. Members on all sides of the House should wait to consider what is said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), who will speak soon after I resume my seat and who will put the general case which the Committee has to put to the House. But the House itself can decide what it wishes to do as a result of the recommendations.
My plea is that the right course for the House is to accept the Report. For reasons that I shall come to in a moment, I do not believe that we should take it further. I would therefore briefly comment on the other various suggestions and proposals to the House.
I say this partly in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said, although it is no part of my business and is quite improper for me to engage in an argument with him on these matters. Obviously, one question which dominates the mind of the House of Commons in reaching a fair decision on this matter—and if we are to do honour to the House we must be fair, as we cannot vindicate the honour of the House by inflicting


injustice on an individual—must be the question that the right hon. Member and my hon. Friend have posed, and which was also put to me a few days ago by Mr. John Cordle. That is the question of whether each of those Members criticised by the Committee should have been recalled by the Committee to make a further representation before the Report was published.
I confess that it seems to me that this is a perfectly strong representation and one which should have been carefully considered, particularly as in the debates when the Select Committee was set up the Attorney-General made a suggestion along those lines. All these factors must be taken into account, and no doubt my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham will comment on these aspects, particularly as this is one of the questions about which the House will wish to hear.
Personally, I still think that it would have been advisable for the Select Committee to adopt the course recommended by the Attorney-General. However, having read the Report right through, I must add that it is very probable that the Select Committee would have reached the same conclusion. That is quite conceivable, and anyone who reads the full Report will probably come to that conclusion. However, we shall hear what my right hon. Friend has to say on this subject.
The proposal has been made that we should take note of the advice given by the Select Committee in each of these cases, but that we should not proceed to the motion in my name that we agree with the proposals. If the House were to do that, particularly in view of the unanimous recommendation of the Committee, the House would be passing a very different judgment from that of the Select Committee itself upon what it was called upon to judge and determine. I am very doubtful whether this would be the right course. Therefore what I am proposing is, I believe, wiser.
Some of my hon. Friends have proposed that we should proceed further than that—that we should pass motions either for the expulsion of the right hon. Member and the hon. Member concerned, or that we should proceed to suspension. That proposal has been made

by the Father of the House, and therefore must be fully respected because of his knowledge of these matters. However, I must give my view as strongly as I can. I believe that it would be quite wrong for the House to proceed in such a direction—either of proposing expulsion or of proposing any suspension. I do not draw too sharp a distinction between the two, because I think that either proposal would be mistaken.
I say that for two main reasons. The House of Commons must be extremely careful about any proposal for collectively deciding the nature and composition of the House. After all, it could be that expulsion or suspension of an hon. Member could determine the outcome of votes on major matters. Of course, it is outlandish to think of that occurring in this House of Commons where we have such overwhelming majorities, but in another House of Commons it could well be that motions for expulsion or suspension could be decisive in decreeing the fate of a Government or the fate of the country on major matters. I do not believe that it would be right to interpolate into such questions this kind of issue, which would only make it more difficult for the House to judge these matters at all.
Every time a Committee was asked to judge such a matter in the future it could be said that if the House acted on that precedent and suspended an hon. Member in such circumstances, that would influence the way in which the Committee went about its business. Every Select Committee would be transformed in these circumstances into a much more highly charged political affair than in this instance and many others in the past.
On other more general grounds I believe that the House must be extremely careful that it does not tamper with the relationship between a Member and his constituents. It is not the business of the House of Commons as a whole to lay down such conditions. This is a matter between the individual Member and his constituents.
Anyone who looks at history will find that usually—not always, perhaps—whenever the House of Commons has tried to intervene in such a way and say collectively that it will determine the relationship between an individual Member and his constituents, it has tended


to make a fool of itself. I do not think that we want to do that here. We should be very careful to see that we do not move in that direction.
I believe that the House of Commons can act with wisdom and intelligence and also with compassion, if that is the proper word in such cases. Anyone who tells me that Members of Parliament who happen to be caught up in such matters should have their penalty decided by the House of Commons and that people outside will not understand if such a penalty is not imposed is, I believe, mistaken.
I believe that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend have suffered sufficiently. I do not believe that in addition they should have a penalty imposed by the House of Commons. It is penalty enough for the House of Commons to pass the motion that I have proposed agreeing with the findings of the Select Committee.
I believe that vie can act wisely and intelligently without any sort of vindictiveness in this matter. I believe that we have done this on many such previous occasions. But the House of Commons has occasionally in the past operated a liberal form of lynch law. It can act as a mob, and of all mobs the most objectionable is a sanctimonious mob.
I hope that the House of Commons will bear all these considerations in mind and that hon. Members will listen very carefully to my right lion. Friend the Member for Fulham when he speaks on behalf of the Select Committee on these detailed matters. I believe that the House of Commons can combine to act firmly but with forbearance and that the best way to do this is to accept the unanimous Report of the Select Committee, but to carry the matter no further than that.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Michael Stewart: I trust that it will be of help to the House if I describe how the Committee went about its task.
We had to begin with the study of a great mass of documents, and we invited, by advertisement, information from any possible quarter. We did this because we felt that we had to perform the task of being able to say that, apart from any right hon. and hon. Members whom we

mentioned, we were confident that no other hon. Member had been discreditably connected with the affairs of Mr. Poulson. I trust that I am right in saying that, in the various comments made in the Press and elsewhere about our Report, the accusation was not made that we had in any way covered up or failed to pursue the proper avenues of information or neglected any evidence that should have come before us. We searched diligently through a great mass of documents. In addition, we took oral evidence from Mr. Poulson and from Mr. Dan Smith.
As a result, we were able to decide which hon. Members of this House we ought to examine and what should be the issues in that examination. In all the documents we went through there was much that proved to be totally irrelevant to the inquiry, and in the oral examinations of Mr. Poulson and Mr. Smith and of hon. Members of this House there was occasionally a little that was irrelevant to the inquiry.
We had to bear in mind the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House that one did not want our work to have the evil result of spattering a smear on the reputations of innocent people. If there were any risk of doing that, and if there were material that might have that effect, and if it could be firmly decided to be irrelevant, we; felt that it should be excluded. In that event in terms of oral evidence there was little on those grounds to exclude.
On this point I must make a necessary digression. It has since been brought to my attention that there were certain former Members of this House who are mentioned in the Report as having been approached by Mr. Cordle on behalf of Mr. Poulson. For that reason inevitably they were mentioned in the Report. They have since been distressed by reports appearing in the local Press of a kind which might lead the not-too-careful reader to suppose that their action was in some way discreditable. They are Mr. Stratton Mills, Mr. Rafton Pounder, Captain William Orr, and the same was also true of the late Sir Knox Cunningham. I also learned that my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) had a similar experience following the mention of his name in the


evidence of Mr. Dan Smith. Any careful reader of the Report will see that there was nothing whatever discreditable in their connection with the matter and that the Committee did not make, and indeed could not have made, any possible criticisms. But in view of what has happened, and for the avoidance of doubt, I repeat that there was nothing whatever discreditable in the fact that their names had to be mentioned in the evidence. The Committee did not make any criticism of them or cast any aspersion on them of any kind. It is right to take this opportunity to make that clear.
I return from the digression to the description of how we got on with our work.
Having discovered from the documents and examination of Mr. Poulson and Mr. Smith which hon. Members we needed to examine and on what issues, we provided each of those hon. Members with a file of documents. the material of which would be in issue in our discussions with him and an account of the line of questioning. The House will find in paragraph 15 of our Report a generalised list of the issues that were raised. The list provided to each Member was expanded to take in some of the circumstances of his own connection with the matter. We provided hon. Members with the documents that would be in issue, and we were careful to fix the dates of our meetings with hon. Members so that they would have adequate time to study the documents and the list of questions before they met us. In one case opportunity was taken to furnish a series of written replies in advance, although they were gone over orally with the Committee so that they could he included in the evidence.
So far it must be said that we treated hon. Members of this House with fairness and consideration. It was not a pleasant task for any of us to be invited in this manner to hold inquisitions of any kind into the conduct of fellow Members of the House, but we knew that there was a strong feeling in the House that this job had to be done. We were given that task, and we did it.
At this point I must comment on the statement made by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). Let me say at once that I do no intend

in this speech, because it would be improper for me to do so, to argue with him across the Floor on points of substance. For example, he took the view that he was under no obligation to make a declaration of interest in the Malta debate. The Committee took the contrary view. I shall not go into detail on that matter in his speech because the House has before it in our Report the reasons why we reached our conclusions and it is further expanded in the evidence and appendices. Therefore, on such a question we leave to the judgment of the House whether our conclusion was right.
However, I must comment on the fact that the right hon. Gentleman referred to the method by which the Committee questioned him and asked whether it was fair. It was mainly in connection with the resignation letter. That letter was included in the folder of documents that was provided in advance to the right hon. Gentleman. At the beginning of that folder was a list of all the documents and the words "resignation letter" clearly indicated that that document was there.
The right hon. Gentleman's complaint boils down to the fact that nobody specifically said to him at any time "But how does your financial relationship with one of the Poulson companies square with what was said in the resignation letter?" I cannot believe that any accusation about the unfairness of the Committee can rest on that. A great deal was self-evident. That the letter was written was a fact, and that part of it was read out, at the right hon. Gentleman's request, by the then Prime Minister also was a fact. These facts in the nature of the case were known both to the right hon. Gentleman and to the Committee.
What was the relevance of that letter to our inquiry? We were not concerned with the question of the Metropolitan Police, or with the question why the right hon. Gentleman had to resign as Home Secretary. The sole relevance of our inquiry clearly must be "Was the statement 'I received no remuneration' as applied to a particular company, as strictly in accord with the facts as it should have been?" Any hon. Member who examines the evidence of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnett will notice with what care and thoroughness


he was questioned on this very point, namely, whether he could be considered to have received remuneration in respect of that company. Again I shall not go over that matter now because it is in the Report and Members can judge the matter. What I maintain, however, is that the pertinacity with which hon. Members in the Committee pursued the point left it in no doubt that one of the questions of issue between the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman related to whether he received such remuneration and whether the phrase "I received no remuneration" could be regarded as a statement that was in accord with the facts, and whether it came up to the standards that the House expects of its Members.

Mr. Maudling: I have known the right hon. Gentleman for many years and deeply respect him. He says that my letter of resignation was before the Committee. That is perfectly true. Will he explain why, in that case, throughout the two hours of discussions not one single word was said about it?

Mr. Stewart: I am trying to explain that every word that was said in the questioning on whether the right hon. Gentleman could properly be described as receiving remuneration was concerned with that letter. It was that letter which contained the phrase "I received no remuneration". With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, I do not think that it would be right for him and me to pursue a colloquy across the Floor of the House.
In any case, at the end of the day the position was that the right hon. Gentleman evidently sincerely believed that that statement "for which I received no remuneration" was an entirely frank one. The Committee reached the contrary view. Once again, I do not propose to deploy arguments on why we have put that in our conclusions. The evidence is in the Minutes of Evidence and the Appendices. What I must maintain, however, is that we were entitled, in view of the very thorough questioning of the right hon. Gentleman, to reach a conclusion, and, having reached it, to record it.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Surely, what the right hon. Gentleman is saying would be entirely acceptable had he asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet

(Mr. Maudling) back to the Committee to see the Report before it was published.

Mr. Stewart: I shall make two points in reply to the hon. Gentleman. I am coming very soon to the question whether we should have invited back to the Committee the right hon. and hon. Members concerned. Secondly, each right hon. or hon. Gentleman was asked at the end of his examination whether there was anything that he wished to say to the Committee. We wanted to make quite sure that those being examined by us would not feel that our frame of questions was too narrow and might produce the truth but not the whole truth, and might, therefore, have been misleading. That opportunity was open to each of the right hon. or hon. Members concerned.

Mr. Norman Lamont: rose—

Mr. Stewart: With respect, I do not think that I ought to give way too often. It will be open to hon. Members who do not agree with me to controvert me later if they catch the eye of the Chair.
There was the question whether, having reached conclusions, we should have asked the right hon. and hon. Members in question to come to meet the Committee again and say to them "We are inclined to reach such and such a conclusion. What do you say?".
We had to give weight to the fact that my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had suggested such a procedure, but when we came to examine the matter we decided that the analogy drawn by the Attorney-General between our Committee and a Department of Trade inquiry would not really stand up. A Department of Trade inquiry, having reached its conclusions, invites the persons complained of to see the inquiry again before the report of the inquiry is published. However, the report of such inquiries is a final judgment. There is no analogy with the process through which we are going now in submitting the Report to the House, with the opportunity for aggrieved persons to make their complaint here. It is because the Department of Trade inquiry produces a final report that the persons complained of should make such a claim before the report was published, but in our case we were going to publish a Report which would not be final and


would be subject to the judgment of the House, with the opportunity for those persons to complain there.
In the event, things did not turn out in the Select Committee as my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General had feared. He had feared that there would be a situation in which hon. Members did not know what exactly was being discussed. I think that if hon. Members will read the examination of the right hon. and hon. Members concerned they will see that it was very clear indeed, not only the substance of the point to which the questions were tending but also the points on which the conduct of those hon. Members might be open to criticism.
The third point was that we felt that we must have some respect to precedents. There have been instances in which the Committee of Privileges, having concluded that an hon. Member was guilty of contempt, has invited that hon. Member to see it before publishing the report. The general use of that proceduce has been in cases in which contempt is not aggravated, and in which it is expected that the person complained of will make an apology there and then and so enable the Committee to make a complete report to the House saying "We have found that a contempt has been committed but we consider that the apology sufficiently disposes of the matter".
However, in more serious cases this approach has not been followed. It was not followed in the cases of Mr. Garry Allighan and the then Member for Gravesend, Mr. Evelyn Walkden, and it was not followed by the Select Committee which dealt with Mr. Boothby, as he then was. It was not followed in the case of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). There the Committee did exactly what we did. I did not find, in discussions on those reports, that there was any suggestion that those hon. Members had been treated unfairly in that respect, or that anything had happened which could have invalidated the work of the Committee.
There were one or two points of principle that we had to consider. What is "conduct inconsistent with the standards that the House expects"? We felt that it should not be our job to try to write

a new manual of conduct which is consistent and conduct which is not. We must apply ourselves to the particular conduct in these cases. We have set out that there are differences between what the House considers necessary now in the way of declarations and what it considered was necessary at that time in the case of declarations.
Then there was the problem raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norman-ton (Mr. Roberts). It seemed a common sense question. If an hon. Member approaches a Minister and asks that Minister to do something for a third party—for example, to give him a job, or grant him a contract—and in the course of the conversation the hon. Member does not disclose that he is employed by the person concerned, we have to ask whether that is consistent with the standards that the House would expect. As far as I know there is no manual or text of "Erskine May" that says so. We had to be guided by what we thought was common sense. Here again, that was our conclusion, and it is for the House to judge whether that was the right conclusion.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Stewart: If it is the will of the House I shall give way.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I understand why my right hon. Friend is arguing in that way, but surely the problem of injustice to people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) is not "What will the House decide in 1977 was appropriate for me in 1967?" but "What am I to do now?" As my right hon Friend said, what are the standards? The standards cannot be decided 10 years hence. They must be standards which are known by the House to be applicable in 1977 to the conduct in which an hon. Member is engaged. The Committee could not feed back retrospectively what the view of the House on conduct is now to what it was 10 years ago.

Mr. Stewart: With respect, my hon. Friend is trying to do exactly what I was trying to avoid—to argue the matter of substance. What I said was that we believed that we had a duty to make a decision on the question whether the conduct was consistent or inconsistent. I


say that I believe that we were right to make a decision. Whether it was the right decision—my hon. Friend thinks that it was not—we are prepared to leave to the judgment of the House.

Mr. Norman Lamont: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Did the Committee actually consider and, if so, for what reason—I do not think that this is absolutely clear—why a letter of resignation should be an occasion for a listing of interests? My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) has indicated why the particular interest which he mentioned in that letter was in fact listed, but did the Committee consider whether a letter of resignation was the occasion for a listing of interests? One would have thought that a letter of resignation from the office of Home Secretary spoke for itself.

Mr. Stewart: We were dealing with a particular part of the letter which the right hon. Gentleman himself had wished to have read to the House, and we were obliged to notice the phrase in it relating to a certain company "for which I received no remuneration". If there had been nothing said whatever—

Mr. Maudling: It would, perhaps, have been better if in paragraph 33 the Committee had quoted what I actually said.

Mr. Stewart: I am bound to say that I assume that hon. Members have read not only the evidence but the evidence and the appendices. It will be found in other cases that important and necessary matters have to be relegated to appendices.
As I say, that phrase was there. If there had been no phrase whatever about whether the right hon. Gentleman had received anything at all, the letter would have had no relevance for us. The trouble was that it was there, and I merely repeat that, in our view, and in the light of the answers we received to questions, it was not a correct statement, and it is for the House to decide whether we were right about that.
Finally, we faced the task of reaching conclusions. I assure the House, and, in particular, I assure both the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend most closely concerned in this matter, that we were not unaware A the great distress

and injustice to which they had been subjected, by the pillorying of them and the hurling against them of ill-defined and unpleasant accusations. I hope that we did our job, not only in the criticism which we made of them, but in the extent to which we made clear that much of that stuff was wholly unjustified, and I believe that I understood the hon. Members concerned to accept that we had done that.
We should have been happier—I ask the House to believe this—if we could have said with clear consciences at the end of the day that no hon. Member had been guilty either of a contempt or even of conduct inconsistent with the standards which we are entitled to expect, but, at the end of the day, having heard all the evidence and having read the documents, both individually and collectively, we thought the matter over and discussed it and so came to our conclusion.
We were 10 Back Benchers, different in political views, in background, in temperament, in the length and nature of our experience of public life. What we found in the end we had in common was a conclusion not only on the substance of the matter but on the precise and, I trust, careful wording in which it ought to be expressed. We were, if I may say so, drawn together by the compulsion of the facts towards a conclusion in which we all shared. It is that unanimous conclusion that we now lay before the House.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Edward Heath: The serious matters which we are discussing today, which have such great human implications, arise out of the statement which I made to the House on 18th July 1972. If I may, I shall briefly refresh the memory of the House about the purpose of that statement, as, indeed, I have refreshed my own memory of these matters by going back over the official documents at the time.
The purpose was to announce the action which was being taken as a result of the deep concern both inside and outside the House about allegations which had been made during Mr. Poulson's bankruptcy proceedings. There had been considerable pressure in the House and outside for the Government to institute a tribunal under the 1921 Act. The


Leader of the House has recalled the dissatisfaction which many felt about the Lynskey tribunal. Others felt it equally about the Bank Rate tribunal. For that reason, I believe, many of us were extremely loth to set up an inquiry of that kind.
What I announced to the House on that occasion was that the Director of Public Prosecutions, after consultations with the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate, had decided to instruct the Metropolitan Police to carry out inquiries into all those allegations and that for this purpose they had received a copy of the whole of the bankruptcy proceedings.
I went on to say that, for that reason, we were not prepared to set up a tribunal In answer to supplementary questions, I explained the reason why, which was as the Royal Commission on Tribunals had itself stated it: that it is almost impossible to take proceedings against anybody who has given evidence to a tribunal of inquiry. It was therefore decided—the Cabinet itself decided, after full consideration—that the law should be allowed to take its course.
I believe that events have justified that decision. I find it impossible to consider what the opinion of this country would be if those who have appeared before the courts and been found guilty of offences had been given immunity because they had given evidence to a 1921 Act tribunal. But I said also that when those proceedings were over another form of inquiry was not excluded, and, naturally, I did not commit myself or anyone else to what form of inquiry that would be.
I agree with what the Lord President has said today, that the Select Committee has proved to be a satisfactory form of inquiry. I pay my tribute to the Chairman, the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), and to its members. It has become part of doctrine ever since the Select Committee on the so-called Marconi scandal carried out a very partisan inquiry that a Select Committee was not a suitable means of dealing with such matters. I believe that on this occasion the Select Committee has justified itself, with one reservation to which I shall come.
As the Chairman has just indicated, the Committee found itself faced with particularly difficult problems. There are two views in the House, both of which can be honourably held, as to whether Members of Parliament, and in particular, perhaps, members of a Shadow Cabinet, should have business activities outside the House. Some believe that they should not. Others believe that they are justified in so doing. The Select Committee says that this is a matter which requires further consideration.
There is then the question of declaration of interest. The situation in the House now is different from what it was in the 1960s. I find myself very much in agreement with the opening sentence of Mr. Speaker King's letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to the effect that really the only safe course is to declare one's interest, however remote it may seem. On the other hand, we all know that interests may often be so remote that in the course of debate, especially a heated debate, it never occurs to one to declare them. On other occasions—I have certainly known this in my time in the House—interests have been so well known on both sides that a Member would have been open to the charge of tedious repetition if every time he rose to speak he stated his interest. Moreover, we have never declared interests at Question Time. But these are matters which have been rightly considered, and, I think, fairly considered, by the Committee.
I come now to paragraph 33 of the Select Committee's Report, which is directly concerned with the statement I made and the part of the letter from my right hon. Friend which I read out. The Committee has reached the conclusion that this was inconsistent with what is expected in the conduct of an hon. Member of the House. The Chairman of the Committee has attempted to justify that on the basis of the sentence about receiving no remuneration. But I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chairman of the Select Committee to refer to his paragraph 33, wherein appears the sentence beginning:
While the letter contains nothing that is untrue".
If the Committee came to the conclusion that the letter contained nothing that is


untrue, one can only deduce that the statement in it
for which post I took no remuneration
is also not untrue.
Therefore, I completely fail to understand the argument which has been put forward by the Chairman on this point. If the Committee believed that it was untrue, it ought surely to have said so in that statement in paragraph 33 and not included the opening phrase
While the letter contains nothing that is untrue".
If I had believed for one moment that that letter of resignation sent to me as Prime Minister by the Home Secretary contained anything of any kind which was in the least untrue or inadequate for the purpose, I should not have accepted the letter. I should have sent it back to him. The letter was for publication and went out in full at the same time as I read a considerable extract of it to the House. I do not believe that it was necessary for my right hon. Friend to have included that sentence except for the one reason that he indicated today—the motion on the Order Paper in the name of the Leader of the Liberal Party and his hon. Friends.
My right hon. Friend has expressed his objections to that motion and I had a further one. The motion did not specifically name my right hon. Friend as it ought to have done but referred only to "a Privy Councillor". The innuendo was that the Privy Councillor was my right hon. Friend. If the Leader of the Liberal Party and his hon. Friends had had the courage that they should have had, they would have named my right hon. Friend. That is why, as Prime Minister, I accepted that sentence in the letter and read it to the House.
I was faced with another problem—namely, whether it was right to accept my right hon. Friend's resignation at all. The present Prime Minister, speaking from the Opposition Benches—as a former Home Secretary of great experience—raised that point in a supplementary question. He said—and I summarise—that it was a long-established tradition that, although the Home Secretary had an overall responsibility for the Metropolitan Police, he in no way interfered with its activities in inquiries, in crimes or in any other way. When I read out that statement

about the Home Secretary's resignation, the present Prime Minister said firmly, from a seated position, "No, no, no, no."
The problem that confronted me was whether I was justified in accepting the resignation, but my right hon. Friend insisted that I should do so because he said that people in the country would not understand if he continued in office as Home Secretary at the same time as the Metropolitan Police were making inquiries into the bankruptcy proceedings in which his name had been mentioned. My right hon. Friend insisted on that because he is an honourable man.
I believed in my right hon. Friend and I demonstrated that publicly by offering him another post in the Government, but he refused that for personal reasons. My right hon. Friend was absolutely honourable in what he did.
My right hon. Friend has not mentioned that earlier, on 5th July, he made a public statement about his connection with Mr. Poulson and that gentleman's firm, what he did as chairman, the fact that it was an overseas company and so on. All that was publicly known.
The Committee has really said that in offering his resignation to me, as Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend misled me. I do not believe that for a moment. There is some confusion about this. The Committee referred to my right hon. Friend's statement, but it was not a statement. The leader in The Guardian referred to a resignation speech to the House, but it was not a speech. It was a resignation letter to me, as Prime Minister.
My right hon. Friend has performed great services to this country in high offices of State, and the House and the whole country are grateful to him. I cannot accept the Lord President's advice to endorse this part of the Select Committee's Report. The Committee has misunderstood the position. In paragraph 33 of the Report the Committee contradicted itself. It was not justified in its strictures on my right hon. Friend. When I announced my right hon. Friend's resignation to the House, the Leaders of all the Opposition parties paid tribute to him and said that it was in accord with the highest standards of public life in this country that he should resign. I believed that then and I know of nothing to cause


me to change my mind now. I believe that my right hon. Friend is an honourable man and that he should be supported.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: I want to move the argument a little away from the course that it has so far pursued, namely, the discussion about whether certain points in the Report of the Select Committee were fair and whether different interpretations could be put on many or some of the allegations in the Report. I start—as most hon. Members do—with the assumption that the Report was fair. We know that it was the result of a great deal of consideration over a long period, and I think that the House will accept that the Report is fair.
The matter that I put before the House and ask it to consider is whether—on the assumption that the Report is correct and that the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend involved themselves in a way other than that expected of an hon. Member—it is right to leave the matter with mere agreement with the Report of the Select Committee. The House must consider whether, from the point of view of the esteem in which the House is held in the country, some further action is desirable. The action that I and my colleagues suggest—not in any vindictive spirit, but entirely from the point of view of maintaining the reputation of the House in the country—is a period of suspension.
I was rather surprised to hear the Leader of the House speak against the principle of suspension and to suggest that it was a wrong remedy. It has long been a remedy put forward by the Committee of Privileges. Suspension is a useful form of rebuke and, in many cases, it is highly desirable. To say that suspension should not be considered because it may sometimes alter the balance of the House means—and it can have no other meaning—that the penalties of suspension or expulsion should never be imposed. I cannot accept that. The question is whether suspension is appropriate in this case.
There are two ways of looking at the behaviour of the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend. For the sake of

brevity I shall say their "misbehaviour", because that is what it comes to since it is suggested that they acted in a way contrary to the manner expected of them. Should this misbehaviour be considered as an internal parliamentary affair that we should decide upon and regulate according to our club atmosphere, with our knowledge of those concerned and the respect and friendship that we have for them? Should that be our guidance in deciding what action should be taken?
I suggest that it should not. This is not a club and it is not a matter of internal parliamentary affairs. This is a national affair and the national aspect of it is that there must remain in the mind of the whole public a high esteem for this body, because it is the emblem of democracy in this country and the means by which law and order are maintained through consent. Anything that weakens the system and, with it, the House is a bad thing, damaging to Parliament and to the country. That is my approach.
I ask my colleagues to consider whether, in this case, the action suggested in the motions put down by the Leader of the House—that is, agreement with the Report of the Select Committee—is adequate. We must remember that there is no doubt that the reputation of the House and its esteem have declined somewhat, year by year, for a variety of reasons. The evidence of that, which nobody can deny, has been that at every General Election the number of people voting has been smaller than at the previous election. That has happened over a period of years, and it is surely a sign of declining interest and confidence in Parliament.
More particularly, during the past few years, because of a number of unfortunate happenings—chiefly in local authorities—suspicion has been aroused and there has been disquiet about whether our democratic machinery nationally is quite as above board and acceptable as it ought to be. I should have thought that everyone accepted that there has been considerable public disquiet about the behaviour of some local authorities, though I believe that generally the standard of their probity is exceedingly high. Public opinion is exceedingly important.
This disquiet reached the shores of this House. There were rumours and suspicions, perhaps untrue, about certain hon. and right hon. Members. It was suggested that they had not been behaving properly.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. John Lee: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have waived the usual procedure and, with the full approval of the House, allowed my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) and the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) back into the Chamber. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said that he did not want to get involved in back-chat across the House. Surely if my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman are to be allowed to remain, it must be on the condition that they sit and listen to the judgment of the House and do not indulge, in back-chat.

Mr. Speaker: It was the undoubted wish of the House that the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Gentleman should be allowed to remain. The right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) gave way once or twice to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I am sure that the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) and the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will want to listen rather than to interrupt every speaker, but if either feels strongly on a particular point, we must remember that the House has said that they have the right to be here, and we cannot have second-class hon. and right hon. Members in the Chamber.

Mr. Strauss: I thought that the point that I was making was uncontroversial.

Mr. Albert Roberts: I agree with some of the sentiments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), but he must bear in mind that he is proposing to use a steamroller. I am proud of the prestige of local authorities and of Parliament. I am proud of our associations inside the House. My right hon. Friend is saying how we should be dealt with. I want to make perfectly clear that I touched nothing inside the United Kingdom. I want to emphasise that. I

hope that my right hon. Friend will realize—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman made a personal statement. If he feels that a statement of fact rather than opinion is wrong, he should intervene, but otherwise he would be wise to leave it to the House.

Mr. Strauss: The extent of the disquiet that exists may be limited, but it involves an important section of the public.
These doubts about our democratic processes reached the shores of this House and many people suggested that something should be done. It was claimed that the Poulson scandal might be connected with certain hon. or right hon. Members and the Prime Minister of the day was right to set up a Select Committee to look into the allegations.
We all agree that the Committee has done a very difficult job very well. The result of the Committee's investigation is the conclusion that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) and the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling)— I leave out Mr. Cordle because he is now irrelevant—behaved in this matter in a way in which hon. Members ought not to behave. That was the unanimous verdict of the 10 members of the Select Committee.
We are now asked to say whether we agree with the Committee that my hon. Friend and the right hon. Gentleman behaved in a way that hon. Members should not behave. However, it is also suggested that we should do nothing about it, that we should move on to the next business and leave it at that. I do not believe that the public would accept that that is the appropriate action for the House to take.
The House must maintain the standards of honour that it has traditionally enjoyed for centuries. A dismissal of the Select Committee's verdict by merely agreeing with it and refusing to take any further action would be a grave mistake and would be damaging to our standing in the eyes of the public.
Among many sections of the public a formal agreement by this House with the Committee's verdict will carry no weight. We shall be accused of whitewashing hon. Members who have misbehaved. I


know that this would not be the intention, but it is the view that would be held, and the one way of avoiding it would be for us to take some reasonable positive action.
We must also avoid the feeling that someone who has misbehaved or done something that he should not have done may get special treatment or sympathy because he is liked or has done great service to Parliament. I am the first to agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton has served the House well and that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has served honourably in far higher positions and has done the House and the country a great service. However, we must consider whether what they have done in connection with Poulson has shocked people in the country and now requires some action. We must not refrain from action because of the old school tie, or for any other reason.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I have deep respect for the right hon. Gentleman's views, but he is behaving as though the House were a club. He is suggesting that we have the right to determine who should be an hon. Member and how he should operate. That is a matter for the electorate and not for the House. The right hon. Gentleman is doing the House a grave disservice by suggesting that when we are dealing only with the conventions of the House we should seek to impose our will on the electorate.

Mr. Strauss: The honourable behaviour of this House depends on the rigid observance of the code of conduct that has been established for many years and operated in successive Parliaments. If that code is violated, the House is not only entitled to take action but, from the public's point of view, should take action, whatever the record of the hon. Member involved and however popular he may be. That code has been violated in these cases.
I suggest we should take action apart from just agreeing with the Committee's Report. Some hon. Members have argued that we should not do this because it is known that a few hon. Members in a small way do not observe the rules of the code of conduct and that it is

hypocritical to take up the case of two or three hon. Members and punish them just because there is a public row. I do not share that view. As Chairman of the Committee of Privileges, I know as well as anyone that there is always a small fringe of hon. Members who do not follow 100 per cent. the conduct that is expected of them. However, that is no reason for the House to refrain from taking appropriate punitive action when, after full investigation of a flagrant case, it appears that the code of the House has been violated.
Another argument against my proposal seems stronger. It is that if we suspend an hon. Member, we shall be depriving his constituents of representation and disfranchising them. In fact, an hon. Member who is suspended is able to come into the precincts of the House, his secretarial assistance continues to be provided, and he may communicate as much as he wishes with Ministers. The only things that he may not do are speak in the House, ask Questions, table motions, or vote. No one can say that an hon. Member who is suspended is not able to put forward the grievances, views and troubles of his constituents.
That, in short, is our case. There is no need for me to elaborate it any further. We maintain that this is not an internal parliamentary affair. This is a national affair. We believe that effective and demonstrable action should be taken against those involved, exemplary action that will show that we disapprove strongly of any breach of our code and will not tolerate it in future.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: I ask the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Speaker: I remind the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) that he need not move his amendment now. I shall put the amendments at the end of the debate.

Mr. Bell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I realised that it was your intention that the amendments should be formally moved together at the end of the debate.
What esteem does the right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) think that the House would have in the country if it were seen to have taken exemplary action against hon. Members without giving exact attention to whether they were


guilty of the offences alleged against them? For some little time the right hon. Gentleman addressed us but he did not direct any attention to the question whether my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) were guilty of the conduct of which the Report o f the Select Committee finds them guilty.
This is a matter of great importance, because when the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) was discussing the procedure that the Select Committee adopted—he agreed that it was not the procedure recommended by the AttorneyGeneral—he said, as Chairman of the Committee, that when it came to the end of the evidence it decided that the analogy that the Attorney-General had made was a false one and that a Select Committee investigation was not comparable with an inquiry under Board of Trade legislation because such an inquiry presents a final judgment whereas the Committee would merely lay its recommendations before the House. However, the right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House and the right hon. Member for Vauxhall himself invite us to accept the findings of the Select Committee without more ado.
We are invited lo accept its findings because it was a Committee of 10 Back Benchers from all parties which spent an immense amount of time and trouble upon the inquiry. The implication was that there would be a certain disloyalty to our Committee if we did not accept its decision. There was the implication that we should be brushing it aside and that we should accept the fruits of its labours. If that is to be the attitude—namely, that we owe some duty to the Select Committee and we should accept what it has stated—then it was plainly the duty of the Select Committee to follow the procedure recommended by the Attorney-General. However, it did not do so.
The amendment that I shall later move suggests that we should replace the words "agrees with" by "take note of". The Leader of the House has said that to adopt it would be to take a very different judgment from that taken by the Select Committee. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman was suggesting that it would imply some sort of disapproval. I do not think it necessarily does. After all,

it is fairly common for the Government to invite the House to take note of their policies. In doing that, the Government are not inviting us to disown them or to disagree with them; they merely invite us to take note of them. I venture to suggest that that is what we should do on this occasion. It is not a positive and confident assertion of a different conclusion.
I suggest that we are not very well placed to reach a firm and decided conclusion. This is an extremely important matter. It is extremely important for the two hon. Members who are concerned. By reflection it is important for the House because it is dealing with their interests and asserting its own rights in respect of them. We cannot treat it as a matter of any minor importance.
I agree very much with most of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and I admired his saying it. However, I cannot go along with him about the value of the Select Committee procedure in these matters. Select Committees serve us very well on a great variety of subjects and most of us serve on them, but they are most valuable when they are most political and least valuable when they are most juridical. Once there is a real issue joined on a matter of personal culpability, the Select Committee procedure is not very good.
For example, in paragraph 3 of the Report the Committee draws attention to the vast volume of papers that it had to consult. I think it consulted 22,000 files, 8 cubic yards of books, transcripts of bankruptcy proceedings and other documents that are set out in a most impressive elaboration. Having absorbed that vast mass of material and heard many witnesses from the police and those involved in the bankruptcy proceedings, there was the "trial" of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. I have no doubt that there was a similar trial of the hon. Member for Normanton. The trial of my right hon. Friend lasted only two hours. That took place under an inquisitorial procedure. It might be said "That is all right. He was there and he could say what he liked." That is not so. At one stage my right hon. Friend was sharply rebuked with the words "We ask the questions, you just answer them."
At the end of the two hours, my right hon. Friend's part in the procedure was finished. In due course the Committee elaborated the finding of guilt. In judicial proceedings, that would be the equivalent of formulating the charge. We have reached that stage. The real proceedings would then begin. They would be accusatorial and not inquisitorial. There would be prosecution and defence. There would be cross-examination. We cannot try an individual in a really contested issue without cross-examination. It cannot be done and no one ever tries to do it.
It is terribly unsatisfactory to have the examination undertaken by members of the Select Committee. They inevitably become embroiled with the person who is answering the questions. They begin to become committed, perhaps in a hostile way. It is easy enough to see that that is so by reading the questions. There were quite strong implications at certain points that the combination of business interests and the position of Shadow spokesman is not really compatible. That may or may not be, but it is the practice of the House that it is compatible. Any prejudice that arose from that would be wrong prejudice.
I concentrate on my right hon. Friend but my remarks apply very much to the hon. Member for Normanton. In the end we come down to two things—namely, the debate on Malta and the resignation letter. I emphasise that those are the only two adverse findings in the Report. All the other findings are verdicts of not guilty.
First, there was the debate on Malta. It was a debate on the defence establishment at Malta. It ran wider and the level of aid came into it, but essentially it was about the level of defence in Malta. Everyone in the House knows that the major consideration that we had in mind in discussing the withdrawal of our establishment in Malta was the fairly shattering effect that it looked like having on the Maltese economy. The question of correlative aid was inevitably linked, but as far as it went it was the case—the fact, as the right hon. Member for Fulham would call it—that the project with which my right hon. Friend was concerned was already covered by a grant

of aid which had already been made—in the past tense. Therefore, it hardly arose in that debate about Malta.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet was speaking in what was primarily a defence debate and was putting forward the view of the official Opposition. I know that the Select Committee said that he should have declared his commercial interests. I am not sure why. They would not seem to me to have been very relevant. Lord Maybray-King, the then Speaker, re-read the debate before giving his opinion on this matter. I prefer his opinion to that of the Select Committee.
I emphasise again that we have motions before us today to suspend or to expel a right hon. Gentleman for conduct which Mr. Speaker at the time thought entirely proper, and which many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House also thought was entirely proper but on which the balance of estimation of some of our colleagues, whom we respect, goes the other way. That is the Malta debate. There is nothing more in it than that.
The only other matter is the resignation letter with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup has dealt most admirably. He drew attention to the inconsistency in paragraph 33, but I invite attention to what the Select Committee said in paragraph 4.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to inconsistency, repeating what was said by his right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). At the end of that paragraph there is a reference to the other connections that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) had with Mr. Poulson. Surely that makes clear the point about which the Select Committee was concerned.

Mr. Bell: I think that the hon. Gentleman is confused. Perhaps I may come to his point next but one, because I want to deal first with paragraph 4 where the Select Committee stated that it did not invite observations by the Members concerned in response to its conclusions because everything had been put to them. The words are:
In the event, no new evidence or accusation emerged that was not fully described and


put to the Members concerned during their evidence".
No one can say that the resignation letter was put to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet during his evidence. Whatever its purport may have been—this is a separate point—it cannot be said to have been "fully described" and put to him during his evidence when it was not put to him at all.
The fact that it was one of the papers in the folder appears to have a sublime irrelevance. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall said that there were two facts here and that they did not need to he put to anybody. One was that my right hon. Friend wrote the letter and the other was that it was read to the House at his request, and therefore, there was nothing to put to him. I wonder what we would think of the proceedings in our courts if it were said "We knew the facts, so there was no need to ask the accused for any explanation". Why not just find him guilty and save a lot of time?
I find it absolutely incomprehensible. I cannot think how it happened. The Select Committee may have thought that it would be difficult for my right hon. Friend to explain the letter: it would not be my view. But the Committee could not say "It will be so difficult for him to explain it that we shall not bother to ask him, but just find him guilty."
I do not see how the House can support that finding. It cannot support it and then talk about the value of the Select Committee procedure when it is, in effect, trying individuals on specific charges. The procedure cannot be defended. The House cannot enhance its reputation by deciding, as the right hon. Member for Vauxhall wants it to decide, not to bother about it but to take some exemplary action to show how the House is determined to maintain its reputation.
I have not said very much about the intervention made by the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), because it does not have any substance or relevance. We are concerned with the conduct of right hon. and hon. Members of Parliament. A letter of resignation to the Prime Minister of the day is in no sense a proceeding in Parliament. The only thing that brings it in by the merest side wind is that my right hon. Friend either authorised or requested that it

should be read to the House. But it is read to the House as his letter of resignation to the Prime Minister.
The right hon. Member for Fulham said that the Select Committee reached its own conclusion about the letter. I suggest that, with the best will in the world, it was making the error of transferring the mental attitudes of 1976–77 to the circumstances of 1972. It is easily done. In judicial proceedings there would be a lot of hesitation before raking around in matters that were 10 to 13 years old, because the recollection of people is a bit dim after such a time. A Select Committee has a very difficult job when it starts on that road. But, if it does it, it is under a duty to transfer itself psychologically to the preoccupations, the state of mind and relative importance of the different considerations that prevailed at the time that it is examining.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Bell: Yes, when I have completed this point. That was in the forefront of people's minds. My right hon. Friend's connection with the Poulson business had been amply covered in the statement that he made to the Press some weeks earlier. Therefore, it would have been rather odd if he had put it into his resignation letter to the Prime Minister. Indeed, the Prime Minister's reaction was that one sentence was out of place, but he understood why it was put in.

Mr. Whitehead: Taking into account the whole context of the resignation letter, will the hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House in what way standards have changed between 1972 and 1976 or 1977?

Mr. Bell: The hon. Gentleman misunderstood me. I did not say that standards had changed. I said that the preoccupations and the relative importance of various considerations in this matter were different. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) will have an opportunity later to say what he thinks.
When looking at the resignation letter in this context, as the Select Committee did, and making it the main pillar of its condemnation, it should have borne in mind that it was a resignation letter, not an explanation of my right hon. Friend's


relationship with Mr. Poulson. Those are almost the words used by the Select Committee. It was not intended as such. I realise that its own inquiry was about that matter, and the Committee thereby got itself into the wrong state of mind.
I intend to move my amendment because I think that this is the appropriate action to take. It does not rebuke the Committee at all. We often take note of matters, implying no adverse criticism, no blame and no dissent. It implies that we have been helped by the Committee's deliberations but that we retain a final judgment in our own minds because we are not quite satisfied with the conclusions that it has reached.
I turn to the consequences of these matters for the individuals concerned. Can anybody in the House doubt the severity of the consequences that have already accrued to my right hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman as a result of the rumours, the inquiry, the report and this debate? Is that not enough? Was it not enough for the former hon. Member for Bournemouth, East, Mr. Cordle, to whose case I have not referred because it would be a matter of supererogation? It shows how much these matters sting, even undeservedly. I doubt whether Lord Boothby has ever forgotten the Select Committee that investigated him in 1941. These things remain with one for life.
The House will increase its dignity, enhance its reputation for fairness and hon. Members will go home with a better conscience if they accept my amendments tonight.

6.42 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I hope that the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) will be voted on after my amendment, because in the event of mine falling I want to vote for the next best. I believe that many of my hon. Friends feel the same. I do not know whether Mr. Speaker has indicated the order in which he will put the votes, but it is important to know.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Mr. Speaker will be in the Chair and he will determine the order in which he will put the amendments.

Mr. Hamilton: Nobody who takes part in these debates can get any great pleasure out of them, but we cannot escape the issue. We cannot dismiss it as being of no consequence. The Select Committee consisted of right hon. and hon. Members from all parties, all of whom had considerable experience. They reached a unanimous verdict.
The Government's motion asks the House simply to agree with the Report. My right hon. Friend the Lord President said that we should leave it at that. He properly said that thereafter the House would have a free vote and that we should be entitled to vote for whichever amendments we wanted. That is how it should be.
I hope that the House will not accept the principle that we shall have done enough simply by accepting the Report. To do that would be interpreted outside as an attempt to shrug it off as being of little consequence and that we had decided that no further action was merited. That would be damaging to the prestige of Parliament, which is already regarded outside with a disturbing degree of cynicism.
A plausible case can be advanced for taking no action. It is undeniably true that this is a measure of the lethargy and apathy with which the House has treated the whole question of Members' outside interests. They have been treated as being of little consequence, partly because we thought that our interests were no one else's business and partly because we found it difficult to come to a consensus view about where the line should be drawn for ethical and unethical conduct.
The so-called safeguards that we sought to introduce with the register of Members' outside financial interests was a puny, inadequate attempt to deal with a problem which, in my view, has grown in importance and size in the years since I came to the House. The register of interests is now ridiculed as being of no consequence because of the flagrant disregard of it by one right hon. Gentleman in the House.
At the moment, we have no definitive ground rules covering our behaviour as Members of Parliament either inside or outside the House in respect of financial interests that we might have. We have


an imperative to declare any private pecuniary interests when we are participating in debate. That has been shown to be inadequate to prevent a recurrence of the situation that has arisen out of the Poulson affair.
My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) will not mind if I say of him, in no hostile way, that by keeping quiet in the House in debate or at Question Time he had no cause to disclose an interest in Poulson. Any hon. Member can, by sitting tight, have as many outside interests and make as many private representations to Ministers as he likes without anyone knowing his interests. That is clearly unsatisfactory. Our present procedure does not inhibit any hon. Member from behaving corruptly without the House knowing it.
The facts that have come out of the Poulson affair have arisen purely fortuitously. It was purely fortuitous that Poulson became bankrupt and that he happened to keep every scrap of paper that he received. If he had not been declared bankrupt or if he had not kept those papers, the situation could have festered and this House could have gone on thinking that it was a nice, quiet, decent, honourable club and that nothing was wrong.
There is something wrong with our procedures. The Select Committee procedure is not satisfactory, but not for the reasons that have been suggested by some hon. Members. Select Committees lean over backwards to give a fair deal. Had the terms of reference been different, the Report would have been different. The Select Committee procedure is inadequate because it lets people off who should not get off. I fear that much hard thinking must be done.
We should have a permanent Committee under Mr. Speaker's control to be a guardian of the good name of the House. When there is any kind of rumour anywhere about an hon. Member, instead of its being taken up by means of an early-day motion the hon. Member concerned should be brought informally in front of the Committee and asked about his behaviour. No evidence would be taken, but that procedure might nip in the bud something that might otherwise fester for years and years.
Some hon. Members might say—I have taken this view myself—that a lot of Members of Parliament have respectable outside sources of income. I have never taken the view that we want a House of Commons with 100 per cent. full-time Members and no interests, paid or unpaid, outside. It would be a less valuable House of Commons if that were so. In any case, the electors who send Members here will normally know whether a Member has outside interests. Indeed, there are some constituents, I understand—particularly of those on the Opposition side—who insist that Members should have a sufficiently adequate private source of income so as to make them independent of their Member's salary. There might be a case for that. My own constituents would never accept that—but it depends on one's tastes.
Here I come precisely to the findings of the Select Committee. I dismiss the Cordle case, except to say that I think that he prevented an otherwise possibly violent debate on his case. I do not feel any sympathy for him. I think that he took the wisest course in doing what he did last Friday. However, the main charges against the other two Members are, first, that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton failed to disclose his relationship with Poulson. That was not disclosed to the House of Commons because my hon. Friend was a silent Member in respect of the House. He did not make much contribution here. He never had cause. I shall not be too cruel and say that he deliberately did not have cause. It was his nature not to take part very much in the proceedings of this House, and, therefore, he did not choose to take any opportunity to declare that interest. But the charge against him was that he failed to disclose it to persons with whom he was dealing. I am not too sure that that would be regarded by some people as a contempt of the House or as acting not in accordance with the rules of conduct that we clearly accept. It is an extremely vague area with which one is dealing. My hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) has tabled amendments to that effect.
However, in the case of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), one of the criticisms of him is that he failed to disclose his interests in the course of a debate on Malta. I


want to refer in some detail to that point. I take great exception in this matter. The matter of the letter of resignation has been dealt with by others. The right hon. Gentleman justified his non-declaration in that debate, which took place on 2nd February 1967, by saying that he had no direct pecuniary interest in Malta at that time. Let me put on record the chronology.
That debate took place on 2nd February 1967. That was just seven months after the right hon. Gentleman's first contact with Poulson. It was just four months after his first appointment by Poulson. It was just three months after Poulson had paid £5,000 to his wife's favourite charity. It was just three months after he had signed five letters introducing himself to Maltese Ministers as the chairman of Poulson's company. It was just one month after the right hon. Gentleman himself had visited Malta. It was less than three weeks after he himself had written to the Maltese Minister of Health hoping that he could be of service in connection with the Gozo Hospital, and it was only three days after he himself had asked a Private Notice Question in this House about Malta.
It was not until 5th November 1975, nearly nine years after the debate, that the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to write to Mr. Speaker King asking him whether he should have declared his interests in the debate nine years previously, and only because he thought that the letter that would come from Mr. Speaker King would help him in his libel case with Granada Television. That is all in the record and it is all in the Report. Mr. Speaker King obliged.
I was never one who had any great regard for Mr. Speaker King's judgment. I think that the Select Committee is right to say that his judgment in that case was wrong. If Mr. Speaker King had read that debate, he would have seen that his supposition that it was to do exclusively with defence matters was misjudged and inaccurate. The debate concerned the level of aid. Moreover, the Select Committee's Report recalls Mr. Speaker Morrison's injunction. He said that one of the purposes of the declaration of interest was a matter of prudence in case an hon. Member should be suspected of unavowed motives. Therefore, if the

right hon. Gentleman had been obeying the principle laid down by Mr. Speaker Morrison—that there might be suspicion if he did not declare his interest—that of itself should have been enough for him to say in that debate "All hon. Members will know—I have said it outside and to the Press, but I had better say it to the House—that I have financial interests in Malta." Why did he not do that?
In commenting on Mr. Speaker King's letter, I should also say that he said that the right hon. Gentleman was speaking as an official spokesman for his party—as though that made a hoot of difference. The implication is that, if one is speaking as a Front Bench spokesman for one's party, one need not declare an interest and that it is only poor Back Benchers such as myself who must do so. That is a very strange thing, but it is not surprising coming from Mr. Speaker King.
There is no doubt in my mind, and, I suspect, in the minds of many in this House and outside it, that the right hon. Gentleman behaved in that particular case in less than an honourable way in not disclosing his interest in the debate.

Mr. Mark Carlisle: The hon. Gentleman seemed to take objection and made comment that it was not until November 1975 that my right hon. Friend wrote to Mr. Speaker to ask for his assistance in whether he felt he ought to have declared an interest in 1967. Can the hon. Gentleman explain why and how he thinks that my right hon. Friend could and should have sought Mr. Speaker's advice before criticism was made of his not declaring an interest nine years later?

Mr. Hamilton: Prior to the debate, if he had any doubt in his mind, he could have asked Mr. Speaker. That was the time. If there was any doubt in his mind that he should have declared an interest in the course of a debate in which he knew he would be taking part, there was nothing to stop that. It is often done. There is nothing to stop an hon. Member asking Mr. Speaker whether he should or should not declare an interest. I am sorry, but the record is there. I have given my opinion and the chronology of it. The House must decide.
Equally incredible is that the right hon. Gentleman denied that there was


any link between the payment made by Poulson to his wife's charity, the Adeline Genée Theatre Trust, and his own financial interest in Poulson's business. Financial help to his wife and to his son were all part of the same set-up. That is quite clear in the letter that the right hon. Gentleman wrote to Mr. Poulson—set out in Appendix 61 to the report—dated 6th April 1968.
I want to put it on record for those, either inside or outside the House, who have not read the Report. This is what the right hon. Gentleman wrote to Poulson:
The amount Baker sent me set out very graphically the total cost to you of the Maud-ling family and their interests. It certainly is colossal. I only hope you think it is worth while".
Let the House judge what was the relationship of the Poulson payment to the right hon. Gentleman, to his wife and her charity, and to his son. I leave it at that. It is for the House to judge.
I have a high regard for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I think that everybody in the House, certainly on this side, has a high regard for him. I have certain reservations about the Select Committee procedure, but not for the reasons adduced by my right hon. Friend or by the hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell). I do not believe that the House can leave this matter at the stage where we accept the Report and no more. I take a stern view of these matters. I have a high regard for this House, and I object very much to the phrase "a sanctimonious mob" which was used by my right hon. Friend. Anybody who reads the report of the Allighan debate in 1947 and sees who voted on that occasion for the expulsion of Allighan will realise that it was a respectable lot.
I can remember some of those who voted for expulsion. There was the right hon. Winston Churchill. He said that it was not sufficient just to suspend for six months, still less to take note of the Report. Quinton Hogg, now Lord Hailsham, who delivered a violent and learned speech, said that expulsion was the only course of action. The then Prime Minister voted for expulsion, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle). Mr. Zilliacus, a great Left-winger, voted for it. A former Tory

Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, voted for expulsion. The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) should read the voting record of his father on this matter. Lloyd George's son and his daughter, Lady Megan, both voted for expulsion.
There are honourable precedents for voting for the expulsion of a Member, and I hope that my hon. Friends will remember them when they go into the Lobby tonight in, I hope, support of my amendments.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I was one of the 10 members of the Select Committee which had the unpleasant and arduous task of going through the evidence and listening to it, and which came to a unanimous conclusion which we thought was manifestly fair and just not only to the three Members who are criticised but also to the House. I have listened with great care to what has been said today by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts), and I am not shaken in my conviction that the Report that we presented to the House was manifestly fair and just.
The hon. Member for Normanton complained that he did not know what standards of conduct were expected of a Member of this House. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) suggested that when considering this matter the Select Committee confused the atmosphere, the standards and the circumstances of 1976–77 with those that we expected at an earlier age.
I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Normanton. He referred specifically to Lord George-Brown as he now is and said "I do not know whether or not I disclosed my interest to George Brown." The hon. Gentleman was specifically asked about this by the Committee, and if necessary I can refer to the evidence, as opposed to opinion. Let me quote the answer given by the hon. Gentleman to the Chairman of the Committee.
The Chairman said, at Question 1163:
The question I really want to put to you about this and several other letters is, did the recipients of the letters know that you were employed and paid by Mr. Poulson? Would Mr. Brown"—


referring to Lord George-Brown, as he now is, who was being approached to try to get Poulson appointed—
have known that when he wrote to you?".
The hon. Gentleman replied:
I would say he would not know, Mr. Chairman, but I did not take it as acting within my employment with Poulson. I took it really, as you might say, as my thinking as an individual that he was a capable person for being a nominee.
The truth is that the hon. Member for Normanton was being paid £2,500 a year by Mr. Poulson, at a time when the salary of a Member of Parliament was £1,500, yet he chose not to disclose that matter to Lord George-Brown when he intervened. What conclusion could the Select Committee have come to—and we fell over backwards to try to remember the standards that we thought were expected of a Member of Parliament in those days—other than that the hon. Gentleman fell below the standards that were expected of an hon. Member?

Mr. Ronald Bell: The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to me, and I want to correct something he said. I did not at any time use the word "standards", nor was it relevant to my argument.

Mr. Hooson: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman used the word "circumstances". I am prepared to accept that.
I now come to the letter written by Lord Maybray-King in reply to a letter from the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. It is important to look at the finding of the Select Committee on the Malta debate. I think that the Committee fell over backwards to be fair. It said in paragraph 31:
The maintenance of aid to Malta was certainly in Mr. Poulson's interests and consequently in Mr. Maudling's interests, since he was concerned not only with the hospital but with the Mgarr harbour and port facilities developments.
The Committee's finding was that the debate had been about aid to Malta and was not limited to defence.
I now turn to Appendix 70. What is strange about this procedure is that, having listened to the evidence, one realises that part of the evidence has been presented today and not the whole of it. If one looks at the exchange of letters between the right hon. Member for Chip-

ping Barnet and Lord Maybray-King, one sees the ground upon which the right hon. Gentleman was asking Lord Maybray-King for an opinion.
The right hon. Gentleman wrote:
The facts are these. I was Chairman of a company in association with Mr. Poulson, and we were to receive 20 per cent. of any fees he earned overseas. He had been appointed in November 1966 as architect for a hospital in Gozo, and my company were, therefore, entitled to 20 per cent. of his fees from it. The hospital was to be financed from British aid, and the British Government had some months before agreed in principle that the money would come from the funds already allocated to aid to Malta.
The right hon. Gentleman did not mention Poulson's interest in obtaining the contract for Mgarr harbour and port facilities developments. Lord Maybray-King was giving his opinion on the basis that the debate was about defence matters. The right hon. Gentleman himself in that debate was querying whether the aid programme to Malta would continue. Lord Maybray-King was never asked—

Mr. Maudling: Mr. Maudling rose—

Mr. Hooson: I shall give way in a moment. Lord Maybray-King was never asked for his opinion about the involvement of the right hon. Gentleman with Mr. Poulson and his companies in obtaining contracts for Mgarr harbour and port developments.

Mr. Maudling: Mgarr harbour had nothing to do with British aid.

Mr. Hooson: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that at the time there was a great fear in Malta that British aid would cease. The developments projected for Malta depended to a large extent on the maintenance of the economy of the country, which in turn depended upon British aid.
I have a warm affection and respect for the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, and nothing that has happened has changed that affection and respect, but it was the unanimous view of the Select Committee that in connection with the Malta debate the right hon. Gentleman was at fault in not disclosing his interest. The Committee did not find that he fell below the standard that one could reasonably expect of a Member of


this House. It accepted that the right hon. Gentleman made a mistake of judgment on this matter and was at fault in so doing.
But it was a different finding from that in paragraph 33. I think that the right hon. Gentleman must be quite fair with the House, that it was not only the question of the Gozo hospital that affected the Committee. It had to consider the whole of the evidence, and it had to consider the letters that he signed himself to Malta in relation to the whole matter. I do not think for a moment that the right hon. Gentleman can say that the Committee was in any way unjust or unfair to him.
I come now to the matter that has been the major point of criticism today.

Mr. James Kilfedder: The hon. and learned Member has highlighted one point by referring to the fact that some part of the evidence has been presented in the Chamber this afternoon but not all the evidence. Surely this is where we are in some difficulty because we are being asked in a sense to act almost like a jury of 12 men, but how many hon. Members have read all the evidence?
I accept what the Select Committee said, but we were not there to hear the replies given to the questions. There are many hon. Members who are not in the Chamber and who will not play any part in this decision.

Mr. Hooson: If the hon. Member for Down, North (Mr. Kilfedder) is asking me whether I think that there are grave deficiencies in the Select Committee system of investigation, I think that there are. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) criticised the tribunals of inquiry which are set up under the 1921 Act. Equal criticisms can be made of the Select Committee system. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) when he said that the defects of the Select Committee system are almost to the benefit of those being inquired into. That is a professional view. I am sure that all the professional lawyers—there were a number of them among the 10 members of the Committee—would agree with me. There were no back-up services. One had either to accept or to reject piece of evidence. One could not say to the police, as one

may do, for example, when prosecuting in a big case, "Investigate this matter, check up on it, cross-check on it." None of that was possible for us.
The Salmon Royal Commission criticised the Select Committee's ability to investigate properly such matters as this and pointed out how limited a Select Committee was in comparison with a full-scale police inquiry. I was diverted, however interestingly, by what the hon. Member said when he interrupted me.
I shall come to the main point of criticism. This is very important. If, in fact, the Select Committee has in any way been unfair and unjust, the House must reflect on that view. It is our belief that we were being fair and just. I quote the paragraph that was referred to in the letter of resignation and the evidence upon which we came to our finding, because nobody has so far referred to the evidence. This letter appears in Appendix 65 and is the part that was read out. I shall not read it all, as the right hon. Member has done, but only the first part of it:
We discussed the assertions made by Mr. Poulson during his bankruptcy hearing. Among them there was one referring to myself, to the effect that before I accepted his invitation to become Chairman of an export Company, for which post I took no remuneration, he had made a covenant in favour of a charitable appeal which had my support. I do not regard this as a matter either for criticism or for investigation.
The right hon. Gentleman was questioned about these matters of remuneration by the Chairman of the Select Committee. I pay tribute to the Chairman. He did a first-class job, as all the members of the Committee will agree, and was scrupulously fair and thorough. This was what he asked, at Question 1469:
Mr. Maudling, will you describe to us the positions you held in the Poulson companies? (A) Yes indeed. I was Chairman of Construction Promotions for fifteen months; I was Chairman of ITCS from November 1966 to my resignation in 1970 and I was a part-time Director of OSB from, I think, 1967 to 1969.
Then at Question 1477 the Chairman asked:
What remuneration did you receive in respect of each of the companies you have mentioned? (A) In Construction Promotions I was Chairman for fifteen months and received £625 which was an annual rate of £500. OSB I was a Director for about two years. I was to be paid at a rate of £2,000 a year. I am


not in receipt of the whole of that but a proportion of it. I was at the first meeting of 1TCS in November 1966 and it was accepted that the salary of the Chairman should be £9.500 but I felt that it would be wrong to take that fee until the company became profitable. This was a company engaged in major projects which take a long time to come to fruition and therefore I decided not to take any remuneration whatsoever from ITCS until the company became profitable. Alas, it never became profitable so I took no remuneration at all from ITCS at any time.
Then at Question 1478 the Chairman asked:
One of the descriptions of this transaction that you have just mentioned describes it as the fees were due to you but you lent them to the company? (A) I tell you what happened about that; it was probably my mistake. When my first fees became due I said I do not want the money at present but I would like to draw it in the future when the company is profitable. Therefore, pass it to me and I will pass it back to you; treat it as a loan. In other words, if I waive my fees to the company it is a gift to the company. If I postpone them it is a loan to the company. There was a mistake. Later, with my accountants, we corrected the books to alter it from a loan but as director's fees I was entitled to draw these fees but for the time being I did not want to do so.
1479. But if it was for the time being, that would amount to a loan for the company—(A) Exactly.
Question 1481 reads:
What about if the company came to the point where it made a profit?—Would these fees then have been paid to you?—(A) Yes.

Mr. Maudling: With respect, does the hon. and learned Member disagree with any single word that I said?

Mr. Hooson: I then turn to the letter again, in which the right hon. Gentleman said:
I accepted his invitation to become Chairman of an export Company, for which post I took no remuneration".
The criticism that can be made of the Committee is that we were unduly fair in the finding. I shall read the finding:
the Prime Minister … announced to the House that, arising from Mr. Poulson's public examination in bankruptcy, there was to be a police investigation into Mr. Poulson's activities (App 65). He also announced that since Mr. Maudling was responsible for the Metropolitan Police it had been agreed that it would not be appropriate for him to continue as Home Secretary, and that he had resigned (col 402–3). The Prime Minister read an extract from a letter he had received from Mr. Maudling, stating that he did so at Mr. Maudling's request. The letter contained the following passage "… assertions that … before I accepted his (Mr. Poulson's) invita-

tion to become Chairman of an export company, for which post I took no remuneration, he had made a covenant in favour of a charitable appeal which had my support. I do not regard this as a matter either for criticism or for investigation.
That was the part of the letter that was quoted:
It was in these terms, therefore, that Mr. Maudling chose to describe his relationship with Mr. Poulson to the House. While the letter contains nothing that is untrue"—
that is, I think, where the Committee can be said to have been extremely fair—
Your Committee consider that had the House been aware both of the close business relationship between Mr. Poulson and Mr. Maudling and the nature of the financial arrangements between them, that it would have considered Mr. Maudling's statement to have been lacking in frankness.
That is still my conclusion. I have heard the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman today, which, I am sorry to say, we could not question him about. It was a matter—

Mr. Michael Mates: The Committee could have done so.

Mr. Hooson: It was in that respect only that the Committee came to the conclusion, very reluctantly but clearly, that the right hon. Gentleman's conduct was inconsistent with the standards that the House was entitled to expect.

Mr. Maudling: Why did not the hon. and learned Gentleman ask me that?

Mr. Hooson: The right hon. Gentleman has asked me why he was not asked about those matters. The right hon. Gentleman, I think, will agree that most of the examination, or a great deal of it, of him by the Committee from all its members was about his financial relationship with Mr. Poulson and his companies. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the first company of which he became chairman, which paid him £650, was the first company to enter into the covenant. That covenant was changed later in, I think I am right in saying, January of the following year, to the second company. This was in 1967. Mr. Poulson himself entered into a personal covenant, because the bank wanted it, later in 1967.
But here was the clearest statement in the letter to the Prime Minister:
I took no remuneration


and it was not
a matter either for criticism or for investigation".
Could anyone have said that that statement in the light of the evidence was a frank disclosure? The right hon. Gentleman has today given his explanation, which to my mind was almost like a speech in mitigation. It should not affect the findings of the Committee but it might affect the conclusion that the House comes to as to whether any further action is needed.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: As a member of the legal profession. is the hon. and learned Member attempting to justify his part in this inquiry, is he attempting to sustain an indictment against the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) or is he attempting to tell the House that he observes the principles of natural justice from which the Select Committee departed?

Mr. Hooson: I do not accept that the Committee departed from the principles of natural justice. I think that the right hon. Gentleman had every opportunity of explaining his financial relationship with Mr. Poulson and the company. We can compare that with what he said in the letter. If the hon. and learned Member is asking me whether it would not have been wiser for the Committee to have asked the right hon. Gentleman directly about the letter, I say that it would have been because we would have removed a bogus point. [Interruption.]
In paragraph 4 of the finding, the Committee says:
Having put to the Members concerned the matters that arose from the evidence they had examined, Your Committee reached their conclusions. They considered whether it would be appropriate to inform the Members of these conclusions and allow them to comment upon them before reporting to the House. Such a possibility was indicated by the Attorney General in the debate of 1 November (col. 1040), and was referred to by counsel for one of the Members"—
that was Sir John Foster.
In the event, no new evidence or accusation emerged that was not fully described and put to the Members concerned during their evidence.
The right hon. Gentleman was questioned for an hour on almost nothing other than his financial relationship with Mr.

Poulson. I say with the greatest respect that we had to consider the evidence of the right hon. Gentleman and to assess it. He was questioned at length. There were questions in his favour and probing questions against him. It was our judgment that this letter to the then Prime Minister, which was read out to the House, was simply not a frank disclosure. From that conclusion, I for my part in no way resile.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Surely in all his remarks about the letter, which is absolutely vital, the hon. and learned Gentleman has totally ignored the most valid opinion of all, namely, that of the then Prime Minister to whom the letter was addressed. The hon. and learned Gentleman has totally ignored everything that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has said.

Mr. Hooson: With the greatest respect, I have not ignored what the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), said. I listened with great interest to his speech. With great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, however, he did not deal with this point. He made a valid criticism of paragraph 33 and the phrase:
While the letter contains nothing that is untrue".
As I have said, the criticism that can be made of the Committee is that it was excessively fair to the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Mr. Ronald Bell rose—

Mr. Mates: Mr. Mates rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Hooson) is not giving way.

Mr. Hooson: I wish to complete my remarks. It is important that the evidence given to the Committee should have been referred to. This was something that we heard and considered, and there were four distinguished members of the Committee from the Conservative side of the House. We came to the conclusion that we had been fair and just.
I have been uncertain as to the correct course to take, particularly with regard to the right hon. Gentleman who was much the most impressive witness who came before the Committee. I take the


same view as the Lord President. I hesitated a good deal before coming to that view and I have had the opportunity to discuss this with right hon. and hon. Members in the corridors. I think it is right to approve the Report and leave it at that. Speaking only for myself, I believe that to be the right course to take.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. John Mendelson: I am particularly glad to follow the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) after listening to his interesting and important speech. I begin by making one reference to the background to this debate, which, as every hon. Member has pointed out, is of the greatest possible constitutional importance. Any suggestions, and I have heard them on the radio in the past few days, that anyone is particularly eager to pursue either the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) or my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) is so completely untrue—as is shown by the mood of this debate—that it ought to be thrown out of the window before the debate concludes.
It is only for that reason that I mention in passing that when I listened to the part of the letter of resignation from the right hon. Gentleman being read out—I was in the House at the time this happened—I would never have concluded that the evidence read by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery could be true. I had no such idea, which is the point the hon. and learned Member has made. I have always held the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet in the greatest possible respect and regard throughout the years when he has held high office. It is not on account of any eagerness that I take part in this debate to say what I believe I have to say.
The evidence we have so far heard and that which is in the Report does not justify the criticisms that we have heard of the Committee. I can well understand that the right hon. Member and my hon. Friend have doubts about the approach of the Committee. I exempt them from the comment that I am about to make. I have no sympathy whatever for those right hon. and hon. Members who have criticised the Committee without any justification based on evidence. They have no right to do so. They have pro-

duced no facts for their criticism and there is no emotional reason why they should have indulged in such criticism. Members of the Committee have carried out their task with the greatest possible integrity and scrupulousness. That ought to be on the record. That is the first difficulty concerning the submission of the right hon. Gentleman.
The right hon. Gentleman is asking us to overthrow the Report of the Select Committee. I do not advance my view out of loyalty to a Committee. Those who have known me for some years know that I do not believe in blind loyalty, to a Select Committee or any other committee. Such a committee is made up of human beings, like any other body in this House, or like the House itself. If we are to follow the right hon. Gentleman's submission we must overthrow the Report of the Select Committee, and I can see no evidence that would justify us in doing so.
This brings me to my third point. The hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) made a completely false point when he criticised the Committee in a rather flippant manner that was not at all suitable to the occasion of this debate. He accused the Committee of having with hindsight judged the conduct of the Members involved as though they had committed what they did in 1977. That was the charge against the Committee, and that charge is totally untrue.
When I entered the House in 1959 the conduct with regard to declaring interests was exactly the same as it is today. It has nothing whatever to do with lists of interests. That is something which was added. The basic conduct was exactly the same. There was never any evidence for accusing members of the Select Committee of having been so na Ïve as to substitute the reality of 1977 for the reality of 1965, or vice versa. The Committee is not guilty of that charge.
Fourthly, the Chairman of the Select Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart), made a profoundly convincing speech, which was characterised throughout by his reluctance to wound. That is something for which throughout his career he has been appreciated by everyone in this House and in the country. He convincingly pointed out that the Committee


could not accept the statement in the letter. I believe with complete conviction that the statement made by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), was wholly insufficient to controvert what was said by the Chairman of the Select Committee.
This is not a debate in which it is enough to exchange declarations of loyalty, friendship, or even certificates of integrity. That is easy. What we have to consider, as the Chairman of the Select Committee said, is the real evidence. That is what the right hon. Member for Sidcup did not do.
That brings me to the reason why I support the amendment moved by the Father of the House. I take issue with the Lord President of the Council. I believe that he is giving out-of-date advice to the House when he refers to the great cases of the past, such as Charles Bradlaugh and all the others who were expelled by the House. The amendment does not relate to expulsion. It relates to suspension.
What the Lord President said is obviously meant to refer to a whole series of cases in the past. But my right hon. Friend must remember that we must make a careful distinction between people who make declarations of principle in no way connected with personal interest and the declared financial interests of any hon. Member involved.
It is important to tell the House why I arrived at the decision to support the amendment in the first place. I do not believe in a House of Commons of people who spend all their time reading Green Papers and white books and exchanging them with each other. I do believe in a House of Commons of Members who have some other interest if they so wish, although not all Members. I do not carry many of my right hon. and hon. Friends with me in that view. But it is well known that that happens to be my position.
However, we can all agree that the essential precondition of accepting the position that some Members concentrate entirely on their parliamentary work while others have some outside interest is that there must be the clearest public division between advancing general causes and one's own financial interests. That is the crux of this debate.
Contrary to the suggestion by the Lord President, the House of Commons has a duty to say what it thinks about the recommendation that is made in the amendment. It has no right to leave that to the electorate. The electorate must ultimately decide whether a Member is elected. That is not for this House to decide. But the House must decide whether the essential preconditions of good parliamentary conduct have been fulfilled.
It would have been quite wrong for the Select Committee, as it would be for the House, to substitute itself for the courts. It is absolutely right to limit ourselves in the functions on which we have a right to speak. On the other hand, I remind the House how the Committee was set up. Along with other hon. Members, I urged the Prime Minister to set up a committee of some inquiry. It took several days before a decision was made. 'There was no great eagerness to rush ahead and to start additional inquiries.
But during those days in the national Press and on the wireless it was erroneously mentioned that everyone except Members of Parliament could be had up for corruption. That statement was always untrue. Most right hon. and hon. Members will remember that I protested in this House and also to the chief political correspondent of the BBC. That statement was always untrue because the real position, as we all know, is that there should have been added "in pursuance of their parliamentary work". However, that phrase was forgotten and for several days the country believed that Members of Parliament were unlike all other citizens and could not be prosecuted for corruption.
That was a most dangerous situation and the danger has not passed. Parliamentary institutions live by the respect they receive from the electorate. Let us look at the examples of history. I do not want to quote them, but it is absolutely certain that the greatest strength of this House of Commons has been the conviction among a large majority of the people that it is an institution that they can respect. If that respect is endangered, even greater danger could follow.
It is for that reason and with no personal attitude in my heart that I believe the House of Commons must show that


this conduct was wrong. In order to do so we must pronounce a suspension so that our disapproval finds its proper constitutional form. I support the amendment.

7.38 p.m.

Mr. Peter Thomas: Like the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), I had the unhappy distinction of being a member of the Select Committee. Unlike him, I do not propose to argue the merits of the conclusions that we unanimously reached. I do not think that it is right that a member of the Committee should try to advance in debate at this particular time why we reached particular conclusions. That is a matter for the Howe to decide on the Report we have made and on the evidence that supports the conclusions that we reached.
I would, however, take this opportunity to follow what the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said about the aspects of the Committee's work. I do not propose to take the time of the House for very long, but I should like to reiterate what was said by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery about the chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Fulham. He was an admirable chairman and we benefited greatly by what he did.
Perhaps I may just refer to something mentioned by the Lord President about the anxieties about the appropriateness of a Select Committee to deal with the allegations, rumours and smears which existed last November when it was proposed that the Committee should be set up. The word "corruption" had been widely and indiscriminately used. Many honourable and respected names had been bandied about, and many doubts had been expressed about the wisdom of the House selecting a Committee that was required to conduct a roaming inquisitorial investigation with no specified charges, no named defendants and no rules of procedure.
As a person who has spent all his life connected with the law—through my father before I became a lawyer—I felt that the Select Committee was a judicial body that seemed wholly alien to my professional experience and nurturing. But the House was concerned with the

standards it is entitled to expect from its Members. Decisions on the standards of conduct of hon. Members can never be handed over to an outside body. Therefore, the Select Committee, with all its apparent imperfections as a judicial body. was necessary and inevitable in this case.
I was interested in what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) said about a Select Committee being valuable when it is political but not very valuable when it is judicial. However, in the event I am absolutely certain in my own mind, starting off from a position of prejudice, that this Committee turned out to be as good, as efficient and as just as any investigatory body could have been in the circumstances and having the remit that it received.
As the House knows, the Committee produced a unanimous Report. I do not intend to advance the merits of its criticisms here today. I am not here as a prosecuting counsel. The criticisms are based on certain findings of fact, and whether all these facts and conclusions relating to the standards of conduct that we expect from hon. Members are justified is entirely a matter for the House as a whole. Our function was to consider and report. The House is the final arbiter. I make no comment on the merits of our criticism save to say that the facts on which the criticisms are founded are true and, in my view, were established fairly.
If the House looks at the Report it will find that no facts adverse to any particular hon. Member were found by us to be established except in accordance with the strictest regard for the rules of evidence. The House will have seen the depth and extent of our investigation. No one could suggest that there was any attempt to cover up. Happily, what emerged quite clearly was the fact that no Member of Parliament was corrupt, either in the popular or legal sense of that term. There was no question whatsoever of any hon. Member escaping the charge of corruption because of his membership of the House protecting him.
The matter of procedure has been referred to by a number of hon. Members, mainly my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield. I know that there has been concern that we should have followed the procedure suggested


in the House by the Attorney-General last November. That procedure was that we should put the final findings to the Member who was being criticised and give him the opportunity to make further representations if he wished to do so.
Naturally, we considered this, but we came to the conclusion that justice and fairness did not demand such a course of action. The reason we came to that conclusion was that in our view all the accusations which resulted in criticism had been clearly and fully canvassed with each Member concerned, and nothing new had emerged or could emerge to justify a repeated rehearsal.
There is one exception and it is both important and unhappy. Apart from that exception, I believe that our decision was right. In my view, the exception is our criticism about lack of frankness by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in the resignation letter that was read to the House in July 1972. It is true, as the right hon. Member for Fulham said, that a copy of Hansard, which is Appendix 65, and other documents about the main question concerning us at the time were sent to my right hon. Friend in advance of his examination. At the examination he was questioned extensively about his remuneration. Nevertheless, I agree with him and other right hon. and hon. Members that he should have been given an opportunity, which he was not given, of dealing specifically with the question of whether the letter, and particularly the phrase:
For which post I took no remuneration
was frank. He should have been given the opportunity to offer arguments or explanations, as he has today.
In my view, that was an unfortunate omission and I do not seek to absolve myself from my share of the responsibility for it. At the end of the examination my right hon. Friend was concerned that he should be told by the Committee if his veracity was challenged. The report in no way challenges the truth of his testimony.
The question that the House will have to ask in this respect is whether our omission led us to a mistaken finding and whether, in the light of what we have heard today from my right hon. Friend and other statements made in this respect—particularly from my right hon. Friend

the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath)—the facts have changed, and the significance of the evidence as it stands is affected. I suggest to the House that if the facts do not clearly support the criticisms made, the House should, without hesitation, reject that criticism.
As to our criticism of my right hon. Friend's failure to declare an interest in the debates on 2nd and 22nd February 1967, the House will appreciate that we did not find a deliberate avoidance but merely a failure to judge what the House would have expected had the full facts been known. The House may think that this is not a very great criticism. Most of us have been guilty of misjudgment at some time, but, nevertheless, this is a critical rebuke. The House must judge, in the light of the facts and the submissions made by my right hon. Friend today, particularly bearing in mind the uncertain rules at the time on the declaration of interests, whether our conclusions were justified.
I listened with care to the address by the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) today. I submit that the relevant findings of fact—and he told the House that there were one or two small inaccuracies—set out in paragraph 38 of the Report were fairly arrived at by the Committee and when examined are incontestable. Whether we were justified in reaching the conclusion that these actions fell below the standard which the House is entitled to expect of its Members is for the House to decide. We were engaged in the preliminary proceedings, but the House is the final arbiter.
The Committee, which was widely representative of this House, has produced a unanimous Report. Each Member responsibly accepted, I have no doubt with a heavy heart, the hard and melancholy task given to him or to her. We were fortunate in our Chairman and the Committee functioned well. If we have erred in any respect, the House must not hesitate to say so, but, with the exception I have mentioned, I do not think we have so erred.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I take part in this debate as one who is very confused and worried. I take the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss), the


Father of the House, that we should not consider this matter in a club-like atmosphere. There is a danger of so doing because we get to know our fellow Members on a personal and political basis very well indeed. We like people irrespective of the side of the House on which they sit. It is no secret that sometimes we like people on the opposite side of the House better than we like some of those who sit on our own side. Therefore, it is clear that this sort of atmosphere develops in the House, and it is important not to allow ourselves to be sucked into that type of situation. I am worried and concerned because I do not want the House to get itself into a situation were we call for the expulsion of Members for reasons that have nothing to do with the type of argument we are having today, but for other reasons.
There are hon. Members whose political views we detest, but it would be a bad day for this House if we were ever to reach a situation where people, because of their political views, were put under threat of expulsion. In that sense it was wrong in past years that Bradlaugh was expelled. We know that the people finally put him back in the House and the House had to accept the verdict of the people.
I do not go along with the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), because I do not think that that is the function of the House. I also disagree with the point made by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House who mentioned sanctimonious mob rule. I agree with him that such rule is to be opposed, but we could hardly describe the House of Commons, as we have seen it today, discussing in deliberative terms a Select Committee Report and going into the matter in great detail, when every hon. Member who has spoken has clearly been worried about the outcome, as an exercise in sanctimonious mob rule. There may be some who are sanctimonious, but whether that can be described as mob rule is a different matter altogether.

Mr. Foot: I said that the House of Commons can deal with these matters with wisdom and intelligence and on occasions can deal with them as a sanctimonious mob. I believe that there have

been occasions in the past when that has happened. However, I believe that the House today is capable of dealing with this matter with wisdom and intelligence. The House today by its conduct has shown that it can behave in that manner.

Mr. Heffer: Perhaps I misunderstood what my right hon. Friend was getting at. I was saying that there was no question of any mob involvement in this debate, whatever the outcome.
I am sure that what I am saying reflects the opinions of many other hon. Members. I have been genuinely torn in listening to this debate. I think it is important that somebody who has not made up his mind should say a few words to reflect the views of those who are in a similar position.
I was most impressed by the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). The Select Committee said that the statement made by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) in his resignation letter was correct, but there was still one area that was not entirely revealed. Indeed, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman felt it unnecessary to reveal it. I do not say he was wrong in that view, but it leaves one with the suspicion that it was not revealed because, if the company had made money and if profits had accumulated from the project in Malta, there were possibilities to be considered at a later stage. That is a worrying aspect of the matter.
There is a measure of hypocrisy about this situation. The Committee said at paragraph 30:
This is a situation which caused your Committee concern, but one which Mr. Maudling was quite entitled to point out does not apply to himself alone. The fact that he had international business interests was well known and did not attract adverse comment at the time. The House has never given any guidance on this matter.
There are many hon. Members who have international business interests. I do not have any, and, indeed, I do not have any internal interests, but there are many hon. Members who are in that category. It is not wrong that they should have such interests. It is important that people should come to this House from every walk of life. It is also important that people, such as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and me,


should come here straight from the shop floor or the pit to bring our experience to bear.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: There are not enough of us.

Mr. Heffer: I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be more of us.
It is also important that people in directorships and company managements should bring their expertise to the House. We certainly have a lot of lawyers on both sides of the House and we certainly know what they think. It is right that that should be done. But there is a certain measure of hypocrisy on this question, and one day the House will have to face up to it.
Nevertheless, it is important that we should always declare where we stand. If I speak in debates about trade unions, I think the House will know that I always say that I am a member of UCATT and that I am in the House with the backing and support of the construction workers' union. It is important that I should say this when I speak on housing or any other subject and that it is known that I have that interest. But does that mean that on every occasion one remembers to say this? If we are honest, we will admit that it is not always said by every hon. Member, and I am not certain that I have always said it, although hon. Members know where I stand.
I have said nothing of importance in the debate except to show my confusion. I think that that confusion is shared by many other Members, who also Share my worry and concern. However, I am coming increasingly to the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) in a very telling speech to which I listened carefully. I am coming to that point of view not because I think that we have to be seen to be taking some action. One does not take action simply because the Press says that one should take action. I do not give a damn whether the Press thinks that we should take action. We should take action only if it is right. That is the important thing and that is what we have to decide as Members, not whether the Press will crucify us if we do not take action.
I have listened and will continue to listen carefully to the debate. I am very impressed with the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the point of view expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Michael Alison: I wish to concentrate my few words solely on the case of John Cordle. I had the privilege and pain of spending a good deal of time with John Cordle last week and discussing with him anxiously, even agonisingly, what course of action he should properly take in the light of the Select Committee's findings in his case and as a result of the state of feeling about these matters among hon. Members in all parts of the House.
In the end, as the House well knows, John Cordle decided to resign, but I do not think that it is irrelevant to refer to his case. He may be a parliamentary ghost, but his case is relevant to our banquet today. I deeply regret the necessity for John Cordle's resignation. It goes without saying that it was a personal tragedy for himself and his family, but it goes wider than that. His resignation is a profound loss to his constituency, about which I hope to say something in my concluding remarks.
Above all, his going and the manner of it represents a setback and a disservice to this House and to its best interests. We should not be too complacent about the poignant and, I think, very creditable passage in Mr. Cordle's resignation statement in which he explicitly bows to the judgment of the Select Committee and, for the sake of avoiding division and acrimony, goes further and actually bows out of the House. We should instead reflect with some misgiving on the almost intolerable position in which he found himself.
When a Select Committee of the distinction and gravity of this Committee reaches the unanimous conclusion that an hon. Member is in contempt of the House, and when that hon. Member is perhaps not universally popular or one of the great figures or personalities of the House, and, further, when that hon. Member's reputation is tarnished in the eyes of many of his colleagues by his association with John Poulson, I question


whether it necessarily follows that the end product of this—a dignified, if painful, resignation—necessarily represents a fair, just or honourable conclusion in the matter. In my view it does not.
I would certainly assent to the proposition that John Cordle's profound error of judgment was in not playing safe and declaring an interest in the famous Adjournment debate of 1964. But, for the rest, is it not relevant to recall, as we think of his painful resignation, first, that the events with which we are concerned and with which the Select Committee was concerned in his case happened as long ago as 1964, 13 years ago, when he had been in the House for only three years and it is specifically judged in the Select Committee Report to be
an isolated incident rather than part of a pattern of conduct"?
Secondly, should we not bear in mind that the practice relating to the declaration of Members' interests was much less clearly specified than it is today, as the Select Committee fairly comments in its Report? It was the very uncertainty and divergence of opinion in this matter in the earlier days that led to the more specific and rigorous formula to which hon. Members agreed in 1974 and 1975. But it is not reasonable to judge yesterday by the standards of today. That, surely, is the most naive and misleading basis on which to adopt superior moral attitudes, although it is very easy and tempting for us to do so.
Thirdly, in the Select Committee's inquiry much turned on the directness or indirectness of John Cordle's pecuniary interest in the Gambia, and that in turn depended a great deal on the nature of the payment that he received: for example, whether it was as expenses or as a retainer. But can anyone who has studied the evidence be certain that if the full judicial processes of a court of law had been followed, with a proper indictment and specific charges, the outcome would necessarily have been a foregone conclusion against Mr. Cordle on this specific point of direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the Gambia? I very much doubt it.
Of course, the Select Committee was not and is not a court of law. Some would argue that that is one of its

strengths rather than its weakness, but I believe that in the context of the case of John Cordle, who was not very well known in the House and not universally liked and who associated openly with John Poulson, though with absolutely no suggestion of corruption—I was very pleased that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) stressed that point—the Select Committee procedure has proved a disaster. Whereas in a court of law a judge sums up on the basis of evidence clearly, deliberately and painstakingly examined and argued by the prosecution and defence counsel, in this case the Select Committee was a judge and inquisitor rolled into one. The real difficulty is that the jury is this House.
It is not as though the jury of the House is expected to reach a verdict. The House is expected to respond to a verdict already reached. This is the profoundly damaging impact of the case. This is where the extremely pertinent point made by the Leader of the House about our real danger here being of a kind of polite parliamentary lynch law reaches reality, for we are expected to respond to a conclusion reached.
In many respects, it becomes closely analogous, if not to lynch law, to some of the practices followed in the medieval witch-hunts in which, once there was the slightest suspicion or even the slightest sign of the practice of witchcraft, the victim, he or she—usually she—was condemned already. It was simply a question of whether she admitted it under torture or took the line of least resistance and admitted it openly. Hanging, or, in that particular case, burning, inevitably followed. What other course could John Cordle take? The verdict having been reached, himself not being a particularly well-established Member, and the verdict already evoking in advance of this debate the mob response of motions on the Order Paper calling for his expulsion, what conceivable alternative could John Cordle risk taking other than resignation?
I believe that it was forced upon him by the process and outcome of the Select Committee. In no sense do I question the quality and calibre of the Select Committee and its deliberations. They were admirable, and I have the fullest confidence in them and in the right hon. and


hon. Members of which the Committee was composed. But the very machinery of reaching a verdict and asking the House to respond to it takes people in John Cordle's position to the point where they are branded as witches before being proven in any judicial sense guilty of the weaknesses, sins or crimes for which they must be burned.
Because he was threatened with expulsion in advance of any hearing of his case, because he had been found guilty by the verdict of the Select Committee, it was inescapable that John Cordle would have to resign. I believe that it is a tragedy.
Now, because of the innumerable sour and unpleasant things which have been said about John Cordle in his day, I wish, with his permission, to leave the House with a brief reference to three outstanding qualities which he has shown he possessed. In that way, I believe, we can slightly redeem the damage we have done to our ex-colleague.
John Cordle was an incomparable constituency Member. I say that without hesitation. Any Member who could have gone through the public relations and media assassination which John Cordle endured over many years as a Member of the House and yet repeatedly, unequivocally and universally be readopted with acclaim and enthusiasm by his association and his constituents must have qualities as a constituency Member which very few of us could emulate.
Second, John Cordle had the distinction of starting in his constituency the first of the Helsinki review committees. He took a great deal of trouble to argue publicly both in the Council of Europe and in correspondence with the Soviet Embassy the case of Mr. Sharansky. It does much credit both to his constituency and to John Cordle himself that they were the first actively in the field, certainly in the Conservative Party.
Finally, I leave tie House with a brief reference to a remarkable initiative which John Cordle took in the Council of Europe, to which he was a delegate until his resignation, arising out of a tragedy—or near-tragedy—which happened to his son Paul, who was terribly injured in a motor accident in France. As a result of the initiative which John Cordle took in the Council of Europe, and of

the drive, imagination and enthusiasm which he showed, against the background of the very serious injury which befell his son, he was able to launch a scheme which is now coming to be known as the international medical credit card.
This card is a remarkable document, in some ways not unlike the credit cards which many of us carry, issued by American Express and other such organisations. In one corner the card must show the photograph of the holder, and it must give his name, address, social security number and nearest of kin, as well as details such as blood group, epileptic or diabetic condition and so on, together with the stated permission of the holder for organ transplant in the event of his death.
I believe that this medical credit card, which, I understand, may now be adopted by the member nations of the Council of Europe, is likely to provide the distinct possibility of survival to people who are injured in motor or other accidents on the Continent or in Britain, wherever the holder goes with his card. No payment will be necessary for treatment, and immediate knowledge will be forthcoming as to the nature of his physique, background and so on.
I believe that the card is likely in due course to be called the Cordle card. I very much hope that it will. I believe that it will lead to the saving of a great many lives.
Why on earth have we forced a man who made a bad mistake but a man with qualities of that kind—

Mr. Arthur Lewis: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I underwrite every word he has said, and I wish to say that I helped John Cordle on that scheme in the Council of Europe. May I add that I was here when another Member was, in my view, shabbily treated but, thank God, he has now a very good name. I refer to John Profumo.

Mr. Alison: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful contribution. He corroborates what I said.
I believe that the Cordle card will be something of a household term in days to come. John Cordle had a lot to contribute both to and through the House, although, as I say, he may not have been


very well known and liked. But why on earth, for a misdemeanour—which was serious—should he by the processes of this Select Committee have been hounded, as I believe he was, as a result of inescapable pressures into resignation? I believe that it is a tragedy.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Max Madden: I trust that the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) will forgive me if I do not follow the line of his speech. It is my wish to comment upon the pungent speeches made by my hon. Friends the Members for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) and for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), but I wish at the outset, as a member of the Select Committee, to pay my tribute to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson), who, in my view, performed a service to the House by his speech today.
As other hon. Members have done, I have looked back on the debates which have taken place over the years on the conduct of Members. I think that they have alwaye been occasions for soul searching, for regret and for sadness. They have also been occasions for frequent allegations against the form of inquiry which was undertaken and the conduct of the inquiry and for argument about the action which should result from those inquiries.
There have also been ringing declarations about the democratic importance of the House of Commons, made with great eloquence by such diverse political figures as Attlee, Morrison, Churchill and the present Lord Hailsham. There have been dire warnings about the House of Commons assuming powers which it ought not to assume, and warnings against this place becoming a sort of golf club disciplinary committee.
In 1949, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot), then the Member for Plymouth, Devonport, quoted these words in the House:
O, that in England there might be
A duty on hypocrisy,
A tax on humbug, an excise
On solemn plausibilities."—[Official Report, 3rd February 1949; Vol. 460, c. 1895.]
I am glad to see that at least in this argument my right hon. Friend is consistent, because he is saying today exactly what he was saying in 1949.
I believe, however, that we must reconcile proper vigilance with the protection of the democratic rights and freedoms of Members, with the rights and freedoms of those whom we seek to represent. The House of Commons cannot shirk that responsibility tonight. The Report of the Select Committee has come about after a series of unforeseen happenings. The corrupt Poulson empire was uncovered by one man's bankruptcy. That bankruptcy exposed all sorts of lieutenants and hirelings. In addition, it revealed disturbing matters about Members of Parliament.
If we are to have a complete understanding of the widespread concern which exists, we must for a moment consider why Poulson recruited Members of Parliament and others, particularly in local government. His empire was created essentially to overcome the rules which bound him as a professional architect. As such, he could not tout for business. He was debarred from advertising for work. So he had the clever notion of creating several companies to push his business interests and to do things which he himself was debarred from doing.
That cocoon of companies having been established, Poulson's task then was to get on the inside track. He saw that a good way of doing this, of being ahead of the competition, was to hire politicians at national and local level. He paid them and, in my view, used them. They were there to influence and advance his interests. They were hired to open doors he could not hope to open, to see people he could not hope to see and did not know, to write to people he did no know, to go to places and to mingle with the influential—and it paid off handsomely.
Poulson was on the recommended list of architects in Malta and was able to get his back fees paid at a later date. It is recorded in Appendix 81 of the Report of the Select Committee that the Crown Agents said:
Poulson Associates had previously been pushed at us by an MP twice they have used an MP in an attempt to further their business
Poulson was able to tell the corrupt Maltese, Mr. Abela, in August 1966—and this letter is in the appendices:
I must say I admire the way in which you handle the politicians; you do it exactly the same way as I do in this country.


For Poulson, the arrogant emperor of the largest architectural empire in Europe, riding high from the middle 1950s, hon. Members were an extension of his business, to be rewarded, coaxed, rebuked, and even commanded. Although the rewards were substantial, then and now, they were, of course, chicken feed to Poulson judged against the value of the contracts that he was chasing. The stakes were high and he was, therefore, none too fussy about his actions or his methods and was prepared to use his hon. Members quite blatantly.
If the Report is not to become just a footnote in history and if we are not prepared to face similar disturbing events in years to come, further positive action must be taken to protect the House from those seeking to influence it and to use hon. Members for their own commercial interest. How many other Poulsons are there today or will there be in years to come?

Mrs. Millie Miller: My hon. Friend has talked about the view of many of us, especially those who have newly entered the House. The point that my hon. Friend has just made is vital. One of the most frightening and worrying experiences that I have had in the House was connected not with this case but with another matter with which my hon. Friend is familiar. It was connected with last year's débâcle about Bristol Channel Ship Repairers Ltd. The House was remiss in not taking the kind of action in respect of that matter that it is taking tonight. The warning that my hon. Friend has just given should be heeded by all of us who are concerned about the future of democracy in the House.

Mr. Madden: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend and I shall refer to these matters later. In my view—and I know, as has been said tonight, that it is a minority view—as long as hon. Members are allowed to hold pecuniary interests, including regular employment ouside the House, there will always be the possibility of a conflict of interests. That potential conflict of interests will always exist until hon. Members are legally required not to hold such interests.
However, in advance of such reforms, positive action must be taken, because

more and more commercial interests and public relations firms acting for commercial clients are attempting to influence hon. Members. This is a modern trend that has to be countered if the House is to remain a free and democratic institution.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to certain areas of anxiety. Initially, we need to strengthen the register of hon. Members' interests. It is not published, but it is available for any hon. Member who cares to inspect it in the Clerk's Office. A cursory inspection of the register now shows that 195 hon. Members hold a total of 444 directorships. Some 78 hon. Members, including some of those 195, hold 130 parliamentary consultancies. When the register was established, I believed that it would be a modest step to enable members of the public to know the interests held by hon. Members. There is an urgent need to toughen up the requirements and certainly to register shareholdings at a lower limit than now applies. It is legitimate for hon. Members not to reveal substantial shareholdings on the register as currently constituted.
There was one instance in which an hon. Member had not registered, legitimately, some 12,000 shares in a particular company which was at the heart of a Private Member's Bill that the House discussed some time ago. That non-declaration was fully in line with the requirements of the register. While that position persists, it is wholly unsatisfactory.

Mr. Whitehead: Is my hon. Friend aware that he is totally understating the case, because the register is now 15 months old and the Select Committee has said that it cannot recommend that a further register should be drawn up, because one right hon. Member will not bring forward an entry?

Mr. Madden: My hon. Friend is half right. Although the register is not being published, it is available to hon. Members and is being regularly revised. All the revisions, additions and deductions are recorded in the register.
I should also like to call the attention of the House to the urgent need for a register of lobbyists. Lobbyists and representatives of public relations firms,


some of them most unsavoury, are seeking to lobby hon. Members on an increasing scale. I support the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Mrs. Miller). I should like to refer to the activities of just one of these firms over the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. Those activities became, in the view of many hon. Members, objectionable and totally unacceptable.
We should know who seeks to lobby the House and the organisations that they represent. Such people should also be stopped from using the House as an extension of their offices and there must be an agreed code of conduct between the House and recognised professional public relations organisations.
It is also essential that we should have a register of Lobby journalists. It is believed that some Lobby journalists have taken on consultancies for industrial companies and are paid regular retainers. In return they give such firms any information that comes their way about the firms' spheres of activity or interests. There are others who have become parliamentary linkmen with public relations firms and parliamentary consultancies, again for payment. All this is conducted in great secrecy and without the journalists revealing the clients for whom they work.
There is anxiety about whether such journalists are supplying information that is available to only them by virtue of their privileged position in the House, such as the receipt of confidential final revises, statements and information obtained in confidential briefings. I am glad that such matters will be raised and discussed by the parliamentary Lobby and I understand that a motion on the matter will be discussed at a parliamentary Lobby meeting tomorrow night.
We also need to address ourselves to the position of civil servants who join private industry, and there have been recent examples of that. Civil servants of under-secretary rank and above are required to secure agreement before accepting such offers.

Mr. Cormack: Many of the things that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned are important, and some reprehensible, but what relevance have they to the issues that we are now discussing?

Mr. Madden: They have considerable relevance, because we must be concerned about all the factors and all the people affecting the free functioning of this democratic institution. The matter, therefore, involves hon. Members, lobbyists, Lobby journalists and civil servants. The procedures and practices affecting the possibility of civil servants joining private industry need to be regularised as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Skinner: Is not my hon. Friend saying that 195 hon. Members with 400 directorships among them will take part in the deliberations and voting tonight and that this will affect the way they vote?

Mr. Madden: As long as hon. Members have pecuniary interests, whether in private companies or elsewhere, it is inevitable that they will pose the potential conflict of interests that I have outlined, and that will tend to limit the freedom and independence of hon. Members.
The people to whom I was referring often have immense and sophisticated resources and are unscrupulous and untiring in their activites in trying to influence hon. Members. They cannot be beaten by unreal or unworldly beliefs and support for weak and ineffective sanctions. That is not an adequate defence.
We have to take action to regulate what happens here and to erect adequate and proper safeguards against the influence peddlers. We have to be vigilant and ensure that this place is determined in protecting its rights and freedoms and, most important, the rights and freedoms of those we serve. They send us here in the expectation that we shall serve their interests and not the interests of others who may see fit to pay hon. Members for the work they perform on their behalf.

Mr. Fairbairn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) suggested that there were hon. Members who may vote not on a proper basis but on a corrupt or influenced basis. That was a most unfortunate remark in the context of this debate, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to withdraw it.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman: Hear, hear. What about the hon. Gentleman's brother?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very serious debate that has been conducted


at a high standard. I hope that we can keep it that way.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. My brother was made bankrupt partly by this Government and principally by the Opposition. He had a £600 car dragged away. Yet it is suggested that a member of Lloyds', with all these other interests, should get away scot-free. That is what I am talking about.

8.32 p.m.

Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I shall follow your exhortation, Mr. Speaker, and within my limitations, contribute a serious speech in this important debate.
As I shall be making certain critical comments about the methods and procedures of the Select Committee, I make clear at the outset that any faults derive largely from the system that the House has inherited. I make no personal criticism of the members of the Committee or its distinguished Chairman. They are highly respected right hon. and hon. Members, some of whom have extensive experience. They were faced with a task that was arduous arid difficult and must have been unwelcome and distasteful. If there are faults to be found with the Report, and, consequently, if the right course is for the House to dissent from the Lord President's motion, they are faults that are basically inherent in the system and not in the desire or intent of the Committee.
I have never been very happy with the system of inquisitorial procedure by Committees of the House. My colleagues on the Committee of Privileges, especially those who have served on it for some years, will know that I have serious doubt about the efficacy of these Committees as tribunals of fact.
I should like to put a basic proposition to the House. Surely in any procedures, particularly if they follow the inquisitorial method which is alien to British forensic procedure, there should be compliance with the rules of natural justice. These are rules on the application of which our courts insist in all that farrago of procedures undertaken in what is known as administrative law—an increasingly important element of twentieth century Britain. The House will always support the courts in that insistence in the context

of administrative law. If these rules of natural justice are right, appropriate and essential for proceedings outside the House, who can say that they are not equally right, essential and appropriate for proceedings within it?
If the concept of natural justice is accepted, we must do two things. First, we must identify the relevant rules and, secondly, we must consider whether there has been total or sufficient compliance with them in these proceedings. The principle of natural justice is basically enshrined in what lawyers call the"audi alterant parte"rule—the duty to hear the other side of the case. That rule sets out the minimum standards of fairness in adjudication by all non-judicial bodies.
The rule is not peculiar to this country. It is recognised in countries which normally follow inquisitorial procedures and is conformed to by international procedures, although on the Continent they call it by a different Latin name. In fact, it is even older than the common law or the civil law. An eighteenth century judge—Mr. Justice Fortescue—in a celebrated judgment traced it back to Genesis. He said:
even God himself did not pass sentence upon Adam before he was called upon to make his defence.
The rules of justice that we should follow comprise, in my view, four elements. The first element is the right to be heard either in person or by a legal representative. The second element is adequate opportunity for the person to know the case that he has to meet and an adequate opportunity for answering it and putting his own case. The third element is that there should be particulars before the hearing of any allegations to be made and opportunity for appropriate discovery of documents so that answers can be considered and prepared. The fourth element, and not the least important, is highly relevant in this context—namely, an opportunity for the party or his representatives to address the tribunal on its provisional conclusions after the evidence is recorded but before they are definitively adopted in a report, both as to the validity of those conclusions and in mitigation if that should arise.
It is obvious that our procedures in this House are such as to make full compliance with those principles extremely difficult. The first rule, the right to


appear, presents no difficulty. It is enunciated in "Erskine May" at page 161 of the current edition and it was followed in this case. However, full compliance with the other requisites is equally important, and it is here that the difficulty arises. There is no sufficient indication or particularisation of the matters to be raised or the case to be met. This was put quite clearly by the Attorney-General on 1st November 1976, when he said:
It is not an inquiry such as is heard in court, where there are charges or pleadings from the very beginning, one knows precisely what material is to be put forward, and cross-examination by a number of people may be permitted."—[Official Report, 1st November 1976; Vol. 9187, c. 1041.]
The point was made clearly by the eminent counsel—a former colleague of ours—who appeared for Mr. Cordle in these proceedings. At pages 98 and 99 of the Report he states:
It is extraordinarily difficult for counsel to deal with a matter where there is no indictment and no specific charge. One can guess a little from the questions what is in the Committee's mind but it is a little bit like a game of chess where one does not see one's opponent's pieces".
Those are the difficulties that face this type of procedure. It is because of these difficulties that the fourth rule is most important. Indeed, it was specifically stressed by the Attorney-General on 1st November. I need not repeat his words as they have already been quoted by the Lord President.
The right to make submissions on the provisional conclusions—what the Attorney—General described as "tentative conclusions"—was expressly asked for by Sir John Foster on behalf of Mr. Cordle at pages 100 and 101 of the Report. It was not expressly asked for by the other two Members. They may well have thought that it was not necessary to ask for it in view of the Attorney-General's clear statement. In any case, they were not legally represented. As the House knows, that opportunity was not accorded to them.
The Committee has sought to deal with that matter in paragraph 4 of its Report, where it states:
In the event, no new evidence or accusation emerged that was not fully described and put to the Members concerned during their

evidence, and Your Committee decided that no useful purpose would have been served by inviting them to appear again before them.
I make two observations on that passage. The first consideration is that in one of these cases—that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—it is not true. One of the main criticisms was not fully described or put to him at all. The second consideration is a general one. The Committee, to adopt the polite language that lawyers use in the Court of Appeal when they suggest that a judge of first instance is wrong in his law, misdirected itself as to the purpose of the further opportunity. The opportunity to make these submissions is not intended to be confined to or, indeed, primarily concerned with, new evidence or accusations. It is an opportunity to show cause why the provisional or tentative conclusions of the Committee deriving from evidence by that time on record are, in the submission of the Member, wrong, unfair, unsupported or insufficiently supported by evidence, or whatever his case may be.

Mr. David Walder: I am a little mystified. My right hon. and learned Friend has so far talked of natural justice and drawn parallels with our courts. I no longer practise in the courts, but I cannot remember an occasion when a judge and jury summoned someone and said "We are thinking of finding you guilty. Have you any views on the subject?"

Sir D. Walker-Smith: In view of my hon. Friend's intervention, he need hardly have reminded the House that it is some time since he practised in his profession. The rules of natural justice, if he had been listening with his customary attention, are not directed to the courts, because the procedures there are defined. The rules of natural justice are concerned with what is known as administrative law. That is why it is a parallel here. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for enabling me to make the position clear.

Mr. Madden: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Yes, but this must be the last time, because of the clock.

Mr. Madden: In listening to the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell), one would hardly suspect that the Select Committee was stuffed full of lawyers. But, putting that on one side, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree that the alternative to a Select Committee would be a tribunal of inquiry under the 1921 Act, which I and a number of other hon. Members have advocated all the way through, and I still do? Did he agree with us that such an inquiry should have been established? Did he raise his voice in that cause?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: No. The Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act 1921 lays down a procedure which on the whole is not to be commended. I have knowledge of many such inquiries. I do not think that they comply in all respects with the rules of natural justice as I have been defining them. I know and I am glad that there were lawyers on the Committee, but lawyers cannot do any better than the circumstances and procedures allow them to do. I have quite a lot of thoughts on how to improve these procedures, but if I give them all to the House tonight there will be no time for any other speeches and I should not be exactly popular with my colleagues.
To return to the precise subject matter with which we are concerned, this basic and essential opportunity was not given in this instance for reasons which, I am sure, were sincere and given in absolute good faith by the Committee with a belief in its correctness. Nevertheless, they were based on a misunderstanding of the purpose of such further opportunity. Consequently, the validity of the conclusions cannot be said to have been established in a way sufficiently complying with the requirements of natural justice.
The result is that nowhere in the voluminous transcript do we get a proper representation of the cases of these hon. Members put in a form that would correspond to a final speech made on their behalf in a court A law analysing the evidence and making clear submissions as to what their cases were. If the implication of paragraph 4 of the Report is that this deficiency is rectified by the opportunity to make statements in this debate, I am afraid that I cannot accept it.
The House as a whole cannot be in a stronger position than its Committee. If the Report is deficient, the judgment of the House rests on no firm foundation. I cannot accept that in the context of compliance with the rules of natural justice an opportunity for a brief statement, in a parliamentary, as distinct from a juridicial, context—made to hon. Members who have had a Report not containing a sufficient and considered statement of their case is enough. Clearly, it is not.
I come to the specific point about my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet. In paragraphs 30 to 33 the Committee sets out the aspects causing concern. There were two main matters, although one or two others were mentioned. The resignation letter is the concern of paragraph 33. It is one of the two principal issues. More than 300 questions were put to my right hon. Friend on all sorts of matters but not a single one related to that. Clearly, if it was to be a feature of the Report, natural justice required that a further opportunity be given to him not only for the reasons adumbrated by the Attorney-General but so that he could make his specific observations about that particular matter.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr.Thomas), with characteristic fairness, accepts that that was a mistake by the Committee. The fair and logical inference is that the House should content itself with taking note of the Report. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]. It is the logical inference. For these reasons, I submit that the Report as drafted should not be approved.
I end with a short word about penalties. We have mentioned expulsion and suspension. Where an hon. Member is convicted in the courts by the verdict of the jury after full judicial proceedings have taken place, these penalties are appropriate. An imprisoned hon. Member could not in any event fulfil his duties in the House or in his constituency. However, in all other circumstances the House should be wary of extreme measures. Parliament is not a club in which Members sit because they are agreeable to their fellow Members. They sit here by reason of the will and suffrage of their constituents. The House must be careful about pre-empting their choice or


usurping their function. The sovereignty of Parliament is, indeed, a great principle, but it must not be exercised at the expense of the sovereignty of the people. Both expulsion and suspension impose a penalty not only on a Member but on his constituents. The penalty of expulsion is a by-election. The penalty of suspension is an interregnum with no full provision for the handling of constituents' problems, of Questions and supplementary questions. Adjournment debates and so on. We would be asking the constituencies to dismantle the equipment for the representation of its views and the defence of its interests.

Mr. William Hamilton: rose—

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I have given way twice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] The hon. Member has had his turn.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I said a few moments ago that we have had a high level of debate. I hope that it will continue.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I have already given way more than once. Before you resumed the Chair, Mr. Speaker, I said that I did not think that I should give away again owing to the passage of time.

Mr. William Hamilton: The right hon. and learned Gentleman voted for expulsion in 1947.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: I agree that one learns a lot in the passage of time. Some hon. Members who are relatively new to the House who might vote mistakenly tonight will no doubt see wisdom if they are fortunate enough to remain in the House for another 30 years.

Mr. Foot: As one who did not vote for expulsion in 1947 and who will certainly not be voting for expulsion now, may I ask whether the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not conclude his speech also with a declaration of interest and indicate to the House that he had supported the establishment of the Committee that he has criticised so strongly?

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Yes, I think that it was right to set up the Committee, and I have paid tribute to its work. I cannot say that I can support the right hon. Gentleman's motion to agree with its conclusions. I have said—I think it is the

fact—that the Committee was faced with very great and inherent difficulties in the task that it had to perform. It is more difficult, I agree, to say what procedures should satisfactorily be followed. It is for the House to consider that in a cool and analytical mood.
Therefore, that is the position as I see it. If the House does not adopt the motion unamended, clearly no question of penalties arises. If it should adopt it unamended, then, by reason of the various considerations obtaining, in my view the House should proceed no further.
I end as I began. If the decision of the House be not to adopt the motion, it would not constitute and should not be construed as in any way a reflection on the Committee or its Chairman. Whatever the result of the motion, the House should be—and I am sure that it is—grateful to the Committee for its conscientious labours and for its unsought and no doubt unwelcome task.
However, the difficulties of our procedures and the drawbacks of the system remain and call for analysis and appraisal with a view to their improvement and to ensuring a clear and total compliance with the principles of natural justice. It is regard for those principles that should govern the decision of the House tonight.

Mr. William Hamilton: Absolute humbug.

8.52 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I do not wish to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) in his argument, save perhaps to say that his speech was the kind that brings lawyers into disrepute.
What I want to try to persuade hon. Members who have not made up their minds is that we should support the motion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House but that we should go no further. I could make that argument on the basis of compassion. I do not take the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) that at a time such as this people in the position of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) should not have brought


into the balance the good that they have done in the past and that we should overlook that in view of the enormity of the offence that they have committed. I say that in time of trouble we all have a right to call to our aid the good that we have done. Both of the men concerned have done good in this House and to this country.
The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has a reputation which will outweigh that which is condemned in the Report and which, I have no doubt, will stay with him for the rest of his life. He is entitled to bring into account what he did as Home Secretary, as Foreign Secretary and as Deputy-Leader of the Conservative Party, and almost Prime Minister. That has to be weighed in the balance too.
What is to be weighed in the balance with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton is perhaps not as important. However, I remember that when I first became a Member of the House I stayed for 12 months in a hotel in which a number of hon. Members lived. One of them was my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton. I got to know him well in those circumstances. There are things about him for which I have great affection, and I still have great liking for him.
Both men have things in their past which I regret and which in some senses I condemn. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton conducts an association with Fascist Governments which I think is totally incompatible with membership of the Labour Party. I think that that, too, is a matter which ought to be borne in mind in making a judgment. The way in which the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet has conducted his financial affairs over the past few years is also something that ought to be borne in mind in making a judgment.
However, all those. questions are beside the point. I could make the case for not proceeding further on a rather more general point, and that is the question that was asked, I thought movingly, and yet a little pathetically, by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton when he said "What are the standards by which we are to be judged?"
I take the point very seriously. The Committee says in paragraph 5 of its

Report that it had to ask itself: "Where no rules were laid down by the House at the time, what rule should it apply in relation to the conduct that it found in these cases?" My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said that the Committee had the common sense to ask whether the House would have condemned these Members at that time for the conduct that we are here describing.
That is not enough. This is not a club. This is not simply a blackballing exercise. If we follow the amendment suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), we shall put out of this House men who were elected by their constituencies to come here and represent them. That is a serious matter, and before we take that step we have to be sure that what they did was not only an offence, but was known by them to be an offence when they did it, and that they did it consciously knowing that to be so. It is not a matter of negligence, and it is not a matter of misunderstanding or confusion. We have to he sure that they knew that they were committing an offence, and yet went ahead and committed it.
What is it that they are alleged to have done? The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet is alleged to have failed to disclose in debates on Malta, when he was the Opposition Front Bench spokesman, that he had an interest in the companies. The right hon. Gentleman has called in aid, and I think tellingly, the opinion of Mr. Speaker King. My hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central does not think much of Mr. Speaker King. Perhaps he is right, but if the right hon. Gentleman had gone to Mr. Speaker King before that debate and had been given the opinion that he received later, and if he had then spoken in the debate without saying anything about his connection with the company, could anybody have said that he was wrong? If Mr. Speaker King could take that view, is it not a little difficult to say that in the right hon. Gentleman's mind there could not be at any rate an element of doubt? If the right hon. Gentleman says that he did not have any doubt and that he thought he was all right, is it not possible to say that at that time, in that way, he was not guilty of an offence?
The second thing that is held against the right hon. Gentleman is that in the so-called resignation letter he was not as frank as he could have been. I do not think that he was as frank as he might have been with the Committee about the amount of payment that he received. I think that the suggestion that he was working for Mr. Poulson as the chairman of an international company because he thought it was an export company working in the interests of this country shows a degree of magnanimity that the right hon. Gentleman cannot even begin to claim.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman knew that his wife's favourite charity would get a substantial amount of money—the exact amount that his predecessor had been paid in salary. A minute was put into the record of the company at the time when the right hon. Gentleman was appointed that his wife's favourite charity would get this money.
The right hon. Gentleman was paid a substantial sum, and he knows it, because he wrote a letter to Mr. Poulson saying I am surprised at the colossal amount that I am getting. Is it worth it?" Surely that is no less vulnerable to criticism than the letter of the poor, lamented Mr. Cordle who was forced by his Opposition Front Bench to get out of the House before we had to consider the question of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet. I do not think that that casts any kind of credit upon the right hon. Gentleman, but what I ask myself is whether it is an offence within the rules of the House. I am bound to say that I find it difficult to say that it is.
The former Prime Minister, to whom the letter was addressed, said that in his view there was a clear reason why the words were put in as they were. The words are clearly restricted. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet said, in effect, "I was the chairman of an export company, for which I received no remuneration". As the Committee says, that is true, but it is not true that he did not receive indirect remuneration, and that was not disclosed. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made the point today in the House that he put those words in because of the Liberal motion. That may be true. None of us

in the House can be absolutely sure. We cannot convict on the basis of doubt. The right hon. Gentleman is entitled to the benefit of that doubt. I do not think that the Committee can therefore say that he has acted in such a way that he has to be expelled or suspended.

Mr. Frank Hooley: If I understand the argument of my hon. Friend correctly, there is no explicit rule and no known offence that either of the Members concerned has committed. Does he not agree, however, that it is a longstanding, well-established convention and custom of the House to declare an interest? Whether this is enshrined in an order, a rule or regulation or whatever, it is an established principle of the way in which we conduct our affairs. The gravamen of the charge is that that was not observed in these cases.

Mr. Lyon: I understand the full force of that point. I am sorry that I gave way, because I am coming to precisely this argument. This is the burden of what I have to say.
What is said against my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton is that he did not disclose to George Brown that he was connected commercially with Mr. Poulson when he wrote the letter. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham said something about conversations. There were not conversations. That was a letter, and my hon. Friend actually wrote the letter, in the way in which many of us do when a Minister writes to one and says that he is appointing people to a particular board and he wants to know whether there is anybody in one's constituency who would be helpful as a nominee.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: It has not happened to me.

Mr. Lyon: I do not find it surprising that my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton should have nominated a man who at that time, as he says, was pristine. He keeps on putting the point—no doubt it seems funny to the rest of us—that the man was actually a freeman of the borough of Pontefract, or, at any rate, a man with considerable authority and substance in the area. [Interruption.] I accept that he was in his pay. When my hon. Friend made that recommendation, it was, after all, in respect of


a man who might very well have been considered for membership of the Yorkshire Economic Planning Board. In those circumstances it was not in itself such a venal thing as some hon. Gentlemen might suggest.
Of course, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) says, all this could have been avoided, this discussion could have been avoided, if each Member had said on every occasion "But I have a commercial interest." But is the House concerned with the difference between someone saying "I have a commercial interest" and what these Members actually did? That is not what my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Madden), a member of the Committee who made the decisions, is concerned about. He is not concerned that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet should have stood at the Dispatch Box and said at the beginning of the Malta debate "Of course I have a commercial interest in his matter" and then gone on with the rest of the argument. If he had done that he would have been cleared of that charge, but he would have done everything else that is mentioned in the Report. He would have taken the £5,000 for his wife's favourite charity, as is said in the Report. He would have written the letter to Poulson, as is said in the Report. If Mr. Cordle had risen in the Gambia debate and made the same kind of disclosure he would have asked Mr. Poulson for a little more, and it would still have stank in our nostrils.
We must recognise that the concern of most of us is not that these Members did not make a disclosure by that sort of artificial form of words but that they were involved in a situation in which they were using their positions as Members of Parliament to boost their financial position. That is what is unacceptable to most of us.

Mr. Maudling: Is there anything wrong in doing a job of work when the salary that might have been received goes to charity?

Mr. Lyon: If the right hon. Gentleman does not know the answer to that question, as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, he is more naive than I thought. He would never have been appointed to the Poulson board unless he had been in the position that he was.

That is the case with my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton. It is not that they have to disclose; it is that we came into this House to represent our constituents. What stinks in our nostrils is that some people came into the House not only to represent their constituents but to use the fact that they were Members of Parliament to further their own ends. That is what is wrong and that is what ought to be stopped. That will not be stopped by accepting the amendments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall or of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central. What we would be doing in that event would be to crush butterflies on a wheel.
The basis of our criticism and concern should be that hon. Members are put into this position of having a dual loyalty. There should never have been any question of Mr. Poulson dictating a letter to my hon. Friend. There should never have been any question of the right hon. Gentleman going to Malta and saying to the Maltese "There is a friend of mine, a company, which wants to build a hospital. By the way, I am the Opposition's spokesman on defence, and we know that your interests are being looked after." That dubiety should never have been there. We cannot get rid of it by condemning these mortals for having gone a little further than a good many other hon. Members. What we should do is to get rid of the dual loyalty, and the only way we shall do that is by abolishing a system which allows the representation of commercial interests in the House.
I see a clear difference between being recruited because a person is a Member of Parliament, to further an employer's aims, and being in business before entering the House and continuing in that business afterwards. If it were to be said that in saying that, as a lawyer, I am being hypocritical, I am prepared to go further. If the real test of how effective such a rule would be is that all of us should abandon all outside interests, I say that I am in favour of that. I say that the House has now reached a stage, long after we are paid adequate salaries, when we ought to be able to say, as the American Congress says, that hon. Members are not allowed any outside interests at all. If that means a complete revision of the payments made to hon. Members, so be it. If we were to move to that


position, there would be a gain from this debate.
We have not got to that stage. Are we to penalise the right hon. Gentleman because he used a particular form of words in his resignation speech or did not say the holy words at the beginning of the Malta debate? Are we to penalise my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton because he did not put something into a letter which he wrote to some Maltese when we do not have a rule stating that an interest has to be disclosed to people overseas? Are we to penalise him because, when he wrote to George Brown, he did not say that he had a commercial interest? All that was being considered was whether Poulson, as Poulson, was a reasonable person to appoint to the Yorkshire and Humberside Regional Economic Planning Council.
What we ought to be dealing with is the crux of the matter. I do not believe that tonight we should do anything more than accept the motion of the Lord President. That will kill, politically, the reputation of the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend. They will have no future in politics after that motion is passed. That is punishment enough. Let us leave the two men to end their days as they wish thereafter. But let us, after that, begin to consider whether we ought not to get to the real crux of the matter, which is that we ought to abolish interests altogether.

9.10 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: You said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that this was a House of Commons occasion, and it most certainly is. It is a very difficult day for the House of Commons, as well as a very important one. The House must come to a conclusion that is just and fair and it has to do so—I am sure that it will—with the greatest degree of objectivity and the least possible degree —if possible, without any—of partisanship.
I would say to the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) that whether the principle of outside interests is good or bad, it is not relevant, because we have to take a decision tonight on the basis of the circumstances as they are.
I would start with a word about Mr. John Cordle, because I think that the

feeling of the House, following his personal statement last Friday, would be that of sympathy and respect. What he did and said on that occasion had wide support.
When the Select Committee was set up originally there were great anxiety and deep alarm in the House at the possibility that in some way or another Members of Parliament might be involved in some degree of dishonesty, corruption or bribery, with all the implications and unpleasantness that that would bring with it. When the Committee reported there was a great feeling of relief that it found quite categorically and explicitly that there was no corruption of any kind whatever and no suggestion of corruption of any kind whatever, either in the popular sense or in the legal sense, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hendon, South (Mr. Thomas) described it. That applies to our ex-colleagues from Northern Ireland. I support what the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) said about that, as well as his hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward).
There is a public impression, due to the very extensive interest in this subject, which, to my regret at any rate, has become something of a media event, that something reprehensible or thoroughly objectionable has occurred. That is a gross exaggeration, indeed, an inaccuracy, as the Report of the Select Committee makes clear. All that is criticised in this Report is what was or was not said in this House on certain few occasions in relation to the declaration of Members' private interests.
This rule of declaration of interest is a very important one as the House knows. Its purpose is to protect hon. Members and to prevent hon. Members' views on policy being accepted without the House realising and understanding the extent to which there may be a possibility of a personal interest as well. The essence of the potenial danger is concealment. But, demonstrably, in the cases that we are discussing, there has been no question of concealment.
What the Select Committee is saying is that within this House there ought to have been a major degree of disclosure and declaration of interests. Certainly in the case of my right hon. Friend the


Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling)—I also think it applies to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts)—his business interests, which are the subject of this Report, are very well known not only in the United Kingdom but in Malta and elsewhere. They were very properly known and publicly known, and the Report makes that absolutely clear.
The debate began with extremely important and powerful speeches from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet and the hon. Member for Normanton. The hon. Member for Normanton ended his speech with an apology to the House which I have no doubt the House will wish to accept. My right hon. Friend made some very penetrating criticisms of the findings of the Report, particularly with regard to the resignation letter and paragraph 33 and also in relation to whether he ought to have declared his interests in two debates more than 10 years ago, in February 1967.
We must weigh those speeches and the arguments very carefully, because we are dealing here with individuals and with their rights as individuals as well as their rights as Members of Parliament. The House naturally wishes to ensure that justice is done and is seen to be done. That is the very painful responsibility that we have tonight.
Right hon. and hon. Members have criticised the Select Committee and the procedure behind it, but emphatically not the hon. Members who served on it. Of course, the Select Committee procedure is capable of criticism. Even the courts are capable of criticism. In fact, no gathering of this kind can be immune from criticism. But tonight we have the responsibility of seeing that justice is done to individuals and to pass our judgment in the light of the Report.
We have another responsibility as well—a responsibility to this House. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) spoke of the esteem in which this House is held. He is absolutely right, and we must give full weight to that. But we must get it right for both the House and individual hon. Members.
It is right for me, speaking from this Dispatch Box, to look at the matter particularly carefully from the point of view of the House of Commons as well as

that of individual Members. All matters appertaining to the Houses' procedures, our conduct and how we run our business must remain our own responsibility. We cannot push desicions on these matters on to others. We cannot devolve that duty to any outside body, because that is simply not acceptable.
The question is how the House of Commons will cope with situations of this kind. I do not think that anyone has suggested an alternative to the Select Committee. No major change has been suggested today. The last time was in the Marconi case, which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
The Select Committee acted in accordance with precedents, and it took, as Select Committees do within broad limits, responsibility for advancing its own procedure, deciding how to conduct itself, and operating to a large extent by self-regulation. It is open to the House to instruct the Select Committee, for example, on the basis of what the Attorney-General said, or in some other way. But the House decided not to do so in this case. The House could alter the Committee's procedures either in a particular case, or permanetly.
We have altered procedures here today. By the clear will of the House, decided by voice, it was agreed that the right hon. Member and the hon. Member concerned should be allowed to be present throughout the debate. That is a change which I believe has come to stay for all time if ever such circumstances arise again.
After this debate today and this particular case it is very likely that the House will want to alter the procedure. The important speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertford-shire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) would be a very good starting point for that process. [Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite may laugh, but after the circumstances surrounding this case and the agony that hon. Members have been through in the past few days, it is justifiable to expect that consideration will be given to future changes.
It may be that we should introduce more judicial practices and conventions and that the House will consider such suggestions. But none of that helps us


in this decision tonight. The Select Committee, operating under the usual conditions and on the basis of contemporary practices, was established with 10 hon. Members from all parties being appointed. It sat for eight months, took a lot of evidence and read a mass of papers. It came up with the unanimous Report that we must now decide whether to accept.
We are dealing with three separate cases. Obviously, there is no obligation on the House to agree with the Select Committee. Arguments have been adduced that the House should automatically agree with the Select Committee's findings, but I stress that there is no obligation so to do. Equally, we must have good reason not to agree with the report.
Certainly in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet I am bound to say that I think that there has been enough doubt cast on what was decided. I do not think that any fair man could say other than that. In the speech that he made and in the facts that have emerged I am bound to say that there is enough doubt to justify something other than agreement with the Select Committee. I am only expressing a personal view. Individual Members must decide for themselves.
It is not an open and shut case. For example, there is great significance in the fact that there is no finding in the Report of inconsistent conduct in relation to the non-declaration charge but only in relation to the resignation letter. The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) drew attention to that fact, and confirmed in regard to the former matter that it was no more than perhaps an error of judgment by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet.
The hon. and learned Gentleman then referred to paragraph 33 and sought to cast doubt on a part of a sentence in that paragraph. The words to which he referred were
While the letter contains nothing that is untrue".
He adduced evidence to suggest that that phrase in the Report was not accurate. He did not say that it was wrong, but, by implication, he implied that in his

view it was inaccurate. There are members of the Committee who have themselves cast doubt on what was said in the Report about the right hon. Gentleman in terms of natural justice and fairness, which is what this debate is about. That is an important point.
A further point which has been made is that the Members concerned should have been called back to the Select Committe. Certainly they should have been given that opportunity, but it is fair to say that the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Fulham, was accurate in saying that in such circumstances Select Committees do not usually call Members back. Nevertheless, in view of the nature of the charge and what has subsequently come to light, there is a strong feeling in the House that that course should have been open to the Members concerned.
I was surprised to hear the right hon. Member for Vauxhall say that he was afraid that if we did not agree with the Select Committee's Report there would be accusations of whitewashing. What about the justice aspect of the matter? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said that we must do what is right, and I agree with him. Let us not be concerned with what somebody outside says about white-washing. If what we do is right, it does not matter.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall went on to say that the code of conduct of the House had been violated. But that is what the House has to decide. There has been argument on that matter and if the right hon. Gentleman has a strong view upon it, he will vote accordingly. However, doubt has been cast on that view. It is questionable whether that could be said in a fair sense to have been proved in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet.
I have no hesitation in opposing the amendments that seek to impose punitive action. I think that expulsion would be absurd and absolutely ridiculous. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) referred to the Garry Allighan case, but the circumstances there were totally different, because in that case corruption was found. The case we are now discusing is in no sense comparable. In the context of this case any suggestion of expulsion is to my mind nothing short of obscene. Suspension is equally
ridiculous, inappropriate ad unnecessary. I feel that such a proposal contains a vindictive element. I hope that it has no political overtones. It is completely inappropriate to go so far as that amendment seeks to take the matter.
What we have before us today and what is at stake is the practice of the House of Commons of declaring interest. That is what is under discussion, and it is a hallowed and sound practice. If the House were to find somebody guilty of not declaring an interest, I do not see why that should attract a penalty such as is outlined in the amendments. We must have a sense of proportion. There is no corruption and there is no suggestion of it.
I hope that that message will go out from this House to the country loud and clear. There is a blurred feeling that some corrupt practice has been indulged in. But if the Report says anything that is unanimous and important it is that no corruption whatever was found; and I repeat that we must keep a sense of proportion.

Mr. William Ross: The right hon. Gentleman said that part of the Report was unanimous. In fact the whole of the Report is unanimous. If he is going ot disagree with the Report he will be disagreeing with the whole of it.

Mr. Pym: Of course the whole Report was unanimous, not only that part of it. I was trying to emphasise with as much strength as I could how important I believe it to be that, whatever else the Committee found, it found no corruption or any evidence of it.
As a general practice there is a presumption that the House normally agrees with a Select Committee's Report. The Report concerned three separate cases. There has been very little criticism of the Report in respect of Mr. Cordle—in fact there was none—or in respect of the hon. Member for Normanton, except by himself, and, of course, he made his own case. In the light of this, I hope that the House will agree that it would be right to agree with the Select Committee in its findings.
I have listened to every word of the debate so far, except for three sentences and, as far as I am aware, I do not think that anyone has challenged the findings

of the Committee in relation to the hon. Member for Normanton. That seems to make the decision less controversial in his case. I am not proposing to vote against that decision in all the circumstances. I do not think that anyone has challenged the Select Committee in that area.
However, in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet the circumstances are different, and I do not believe that any honest, fair-minded man who heard my right hon. Friend speak, or the subsequent two hours of debate, or preferably the whole of the debate, would come to any conclusion other than that there was too much doubt for us to be sure, too much doubt for us to be certain that we should be right to accept what the Committee has decided.
The whole of the debate has centred on the circumstances surrounding my right hon. Friend's case and the circumstances of his alleged non-declaration of interest. In fairness and justice I think that it would be right to distance ourselves to some extent from the Select Committee by agreeing to take note of the Report. I feel that that is the right thing to do. Of course I am speaking for myself here. Every hon. Member has to go through the agony of deciding. I am sorry on this occasion that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet is not sitting on the other side of the House, because I would say exactly the same in those circumstances. We have to be fair on whatever side of the House an hon. Member sits.
If we are to be fair and just to my right hon. Friend, if we say that it would be right for the House to take note of the Select Committee Report in his case, we are contributing positively to the good name of the House and upholding the traditions of the House, and in particular our responsibility to individual hon. Members and the fairness that we should show to all hon. Members. I hope very much that in that case the House will not agree with the Lord President, but will agree that it would be more appropriate to take note of the Report.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that in the case of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) it seems to have been a case


of someone being out of his depth rather than someone behaving in a manner other than would be expected in the House? Does he not feel, therefore, that the same view should be taken of the hon. Member for Normanton as of his right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling)?

Mr. Pym: My reply is that if there had been a quarter as much argument in the case of the hon. Member for Normanton as in the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, it would be very much easier for the House to come to that conclusion. As a matter of fact, no one has adduced that case. It is difficult. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) may feel that that is the right course in the case of the hon. Member for Normanton as well. But the whole of the argument today has been about my right hon. Friend.
I agree that taking note of the Report would be a possible way of treating the hon. Member for Normanton. It is curious that there is such a contrast between all the evidence and argument adduced in the one case that was not adduced in the other.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Foot: If the House will permit me, I wish to add a few words. I do not wish to prevent any other hon. Member from speaking, although I should have thought that it would be best if we could reach the votes and decisions within a very short time now.
I have listened to every word uttered in the debate, as the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) has done, but I still hold to the opinion which I sought to put to the House at the outset. I greatly hope that the House will decide not to support the proposals for expulsion or suspension. For the reasons which I attempted to give earlier, I believe that either of those courses would be unwise in any of the cases before us. But I still hold to the view that it would be right for the House to agree with the opinion of the Select Committee in all the cases—that is, the case of Mr. Cordle, the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and my hon Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr Roberts).
I believe that it would be right to do that, and I feel that the full scale of this debate turns in that direction. I must say that, and I am sure that all who heard the speeches of, for example, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and others who have spoken will have been impressed by what they heard. I believe that to be the right verdict for the House to reach.
I wish, however, to add a final word, especially in view of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon). I agreed with almost everything he said, except his deduction regarding what would happen if the House agreed with the unanimous opinions of the Select Committee. My hon. Friend said that that would mean the end of the political life of those who were so condemned.
I do not take that view at all. Indeed there are many precedents which prove the opposite. For example, Robert Boothby was condemned or criticised by the House of Commons in similar terms on a motion of the same character following a Select Committee. The House took its decision then, agreeing with the report of the Select Committee, but nevertheless Robert Boothby—later Lord Boothby—lived to make a great contribution to this House and to the politics of our country as a whole. I do not believe that there would be that consequence, and I should not be taking my present view if I believed that it would.
I do not take the view that we have to agree with the unanimous reports of Select Committees in all cases or anything of the sort. However, in the light of all these circumstances and all the evidence which was most carefully examined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) and the Select Committee representative of the whole House, and in view of the comments which have been made upon the Report in the debate today, I believe that the right course for the House is, as I said earlier, to give combined acceptance of the unanimous conclusions of the Select Committee and thereafter to take no further action. That is the recommendation which I personally put to the House.

9.33 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: rose—

Hon. Members: "Oh."

Mr. Cormack: I hope that I shall be allowed to say a few words. It is not yet 10 o'clock, and I have sat throughout the debate.
I believe that the Leader of the House has today acted and spoken to us as a true Leader of the House in trying to prevent our polarising ourselves on what I consider to be a very sad and solemn occasion. Nevertheless, I take issue with the right hon. Gentleman's recommendations and conclusions, and I hope that we shall feel able to satisfy our own consciences and the opinion of people throughout the country by taking note of the several motions lather than by specifically approving the Committee's recommendations.
I say that quite deliberately as one who witnessed at fairly close quarters the harrowing events of Friday last, when Mr. John Cordle acted, I believe, with great honour and with considerable dignity and resigned his seat in the House. In so doing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Alison) reminded us, John Cordle deprived his constituents of somebody whom they held in high regard and great affection and whom they had elected and sent to this place.
I believe that we should be acting extremely rashly and most uncharitably if we presumed to put the constituents of Normanton and Chipping Barnet in the same position. I hope that we shall not take any step that could lead in that direction. There is a time when all of us in the House can exercise a little bit of charity towards our colleagues, and this is just such a time.

The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) spoke with passion and conviction, as he always does. I do not agree with his view and I take issue with him because every time he is elected by his constituents to the House and every time that he takes the oath or affirms he calls upon us for our charity because he does not believe in the monarchy of this country and must sit here as a republican. We must take that sort of thing into account.

We should realise, looking back over the period in question, which is 13 to 14 years, that there are few of us who can say that we have done everything completely as we might have wished or who have not made the odd mistake. If our colleagues have erred in any judgment, they have suffered more than enough from the publicity following the Report and during previous years when their names were constantly in the headlines.

We can serve the House best and show understanding best by taking note and leaving the matter there.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee insofar as it relates to Mr. John H. Cordle.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee insofar as it relates to Mr. Reginald Maudling.—[Mr. Foot.]

Amendment proposed, leave out 'agrees with' and insert 'takes note of' —[Mr. Ronald Bell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 207.

Division No. 212]
AYES
 [9.38 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Brittan, Leon
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)


Altken, Jonathan
Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Critchley, Julian


Alison, Michael
Brotherton, Michael
Crouch, David


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)


Awdry, Daniel
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bryan, Sir Paul
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baker, Kenneth
Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Drayson, Burnaby


Banks, Robert
Buck, Antony
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Budgen, Nick
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Bulmer, Esmond
Durant, Tony


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Dykes, Hugh


Biggs-Davison, John
Carlisle, Mark
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John


Boardman, H.
Channon, Paul
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Clegg, Walter
Elliott, Sir William


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Conlan, Bernard
English, Michael


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Eyre, Reginald


Braine, Sir Bernard
Costain, A. P.
Fairbairn, Nicholas




Fairgrieve, Russell
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Ridsdale, Julian


Farr, John
Lloyd, Ian
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fell, Anthony
Loveridge, John
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Luce, Richard
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
McCrindle, Robert
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Macfarlane, Neil
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
MacGregor, John
Royle, Sir Anthony


Fookes, Miss Janet
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Sainsbury, Tim


Ford, Ben
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Scott, Nicholas


Fry, Peter
Madel, David
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Marten, Neil
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Mates, Michael
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol
Shepherd, Colin


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mawby, Ray
Shersby, Michael


Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Silvester, Fred


Goodhew, Victor
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Sinclair, Sir George


Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mills, Peter
Skeet, T. H. H.


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Moate, Roger
Speed, Keith


Grieve, Percy
Monro, Hector
Spence, John


Griffiths, Eldon
Montgomery, Fergus
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Grist, Ian
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Sproat, Iain


Grylls, Michael
Morgan, Geraint
Stainton, Keith


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stanley, John


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Hannam, John
Mudd, David
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Neave, Airey
Stokes, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony
Stradling Thomas, J.


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Neubert, Michael
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hawkins, Paul
Newton, Tony
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)


Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom
Tebbit, Norman


Heseltine, Michael
Nott, John
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley
Thorpe, RI Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Tomney, Frank


Hordern, Peter
Osborn, John
Tuck, Raphael


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Page, John (Harrow West)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Richard (Workington)
Viggers, Peter


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'dt'd)
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Jopling, Michael
Parkinson, Cecil
Wakeham, John


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pattie, Geoffrey
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Percival, Ian
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Wall, Patrick


Kilfedder, James
Pink, R. Bonner
Warren, Kenneth


Kimball, Marcus
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Weatherlll, Bernard


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wells, John


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Raison, Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Knight, Mrs Jill
Rathbone, Tim
Winterton, Nicholas


Knox, David
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Lamond, James
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Woodall, Alec


Lamont, Norman
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Younger, Hon George


Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)



Lawson, Nigel
Rhodes James, R.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Mr. Ronald Bell and


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Patrick Cormack.




NOES


Allaun, Frank
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Deakins, Eric


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Canavan, Dennis
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Doig, Peter


Ashton, Joe
Carmichael, Neil
Dormand, J. D.


Atkinson, Norman
Carter, Ray
Dunlop, John


Bates, Alt
Carter-Jones, Lewis
Dunnett, Jack


Bean, R. E.
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Beith, A. J.
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Eadie, Alex


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Clemitson, Ivor
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)


Biffen, John
Cohen, Stanley
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Coleman, Donald
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Cowans, Harry
Evans, John (Newton)


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Crawford, Douglas
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)


Bottomley, Peter
Crawshaw, Richard
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)


Bradley, Tom
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Davidson, Arthur
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)


Buchanan, Richard
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Forman, Nigel







Forrester, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Silverman, Julius


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
McCusker, H.
Skinner, Dennis


Freeson, Reginald
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Small, William


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McElhone, Frank
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


George, Bruce
MacFarquhar, Roderick
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Rt Hon Gregor
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Gourlay, Harry
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Snaps, Peter


Graham, Ted
McNamara, Kevin
Spearing, Nigel


Grocott, Bruce
Madden, Max
Spriggs, Leslie


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mahon, Simon
Stallard, A. W.


Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth
Stewart, fit Hon M. (Fulham)


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Stoddart, David


Harvie Anderson, Rt hon Miss
Maynard, Miss Joan
Stott, Roger


Hatton, Frank
Mendelson, John
Strang, Gavin


Heffer, Eric S.
Mikardo, Ian
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Hooley, Frank
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Hooson, Emlyn
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Horam, John
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Molloy, William
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Molyneaux, James
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moyle, Roland
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Huckfield, Les
Newens, Stanley
Tierney, Sydney


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Noble, Mike
Tinn, James


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Ogden, Eric
Tomlinson, John


Hunt, John (Bromley)
O'Halloran, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Hunter, Adam
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Ovenden, John
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Padley, Walter
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Janner, Greville
Palmer, Arthur
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Parker, John
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Parry, Robert
Watkins, David


Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Pavitt, Laurie
Watkinson, John


John, Brynmor
Penhaligon, David
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Perry, Ernest
Whitehead, Phillip


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Prescott, John
Whitlock, William


Jones, Barry (East Flint)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Wigley, Dafydd


Kaufman, Gerald
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Kerr, Russell
Richardson, Miss Jo
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Kinnock, Neil
Robinson, Geoffrey
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Lamble, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Lamborn, Harry
Rooker, J. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Roper, John
Woof, Robert


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Lee, John
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)



Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Sandelson, Neville
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Mr. George Cunningham and


Loyden, Eddie
Sillars, James
Mr. Arnold Shaw,


Lyon, Alexander (York)

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed, at end add
'and that Mr. Maudling be expelled this House.'.—[Mr. William Hamilton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that on a vote of this kind there should be an organised Whip on the Opposition side of the House? Is it in order on an issue of this kind?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know nothing about any organised Whip. In any case, it has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Peter Emery(seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it right that an hon. Member should allege that there is an organised Whip on this side of the House when there is no such Whip at all?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have already explained that I know nothing about the Whips. I have forgotten how they work.

The House having divided: Ayes 11, Noes 331.

Division No. 213
AYES
9.50 p.m.


Canavan, Dennis
Maynard, Miss Joan
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Rodgers, George (Chorley)



Kinnock, Neil
Skinner, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lamble, David
Spriggs, Leslie
Mr. Christopher Price and


Loyden, Eddie
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mr. William Hamilton.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Fairgrieve, Russell
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Aitken, Jonathan
Farr, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Alison, Michael
Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Ian


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Loveridge, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Luce, Richard


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)


Atkinson, Norman
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
McCrindle, Robert


Awdry, Daniel
Fookes, Miss Janet
McCusker, H.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Macfarlane, Neil


Baker, Kenneth
Ford, Ben
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Banks, Robert
Forman, Nigel
MacGregor, John


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Forrester, John
McGuire, Michael (Ince)


Bates, Alf
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)


Beith, A. J.
Freud, Clement
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)


Bell, Ronald
Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M (Newbury)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Fores)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Madel, David


Biffen, John
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mahon, Simon


Biggs-Davison, John
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.


Blaker, Peter
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Boardman, H.
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marten, Neil


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ginsburg, David
Mates, Michael


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Mawby, Ray


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Goodhart, Philip
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Bradley, Tom
Goodhew, Victor
Mayhew, Patrick


Braine, Sir Bernard
Goodlad, Alastair
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Brittan, Leon
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mikardo, Ian


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Brooke, Peter
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mills, Peter


Brotherton, Michael
Grieve, Percy
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Griffiths, Eldon
Moate, Roger


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Molloy, William


Bryan, Sir Paul
Grist, Ian
Molyneaux, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Monro, Hector


Buck, Antony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Montgomery, Fergus


Budgen, Nick
Hampson, Dr Keith
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Bulmer, Esmond
Hannam, John
Morgan, Geraint


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Harvie Anderson, Rt hon Miss
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Cant, R. B.
Haselhurst, Alan
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Carlisle, Mark
Hastings, Stephen
Moyle, Roland


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mudd, David


Channon, Paul
Hawkins, Paul
Neave, Airey


Churchill, W. S.
Hayhoe, Barney
Nelson, Anthony


Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Neubert, Michael


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stanley


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Heseltine, Michael
Newton, Tony


Clegg, Walter
Higgins, Terence L.
Normanton, Tom


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Holland, Philip
Nott, John


Cohen, Stanley
Hooson, Emlyn
O'Halloran, Michael


Conlan, Bernard
Hordern, Peter
Onslow, Cranley


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Cope, John
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Cormack, Patrick
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Osborn, John


Costain, A. P.
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ovenden, John


Cowans, Harry
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Padley, Walter


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Crawford, Douglas
Hurd, Douglas
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Crawshaw, Richard
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Richard (Workington)


Critchley, Julian
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Pardoe, John


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Parkinson, Cecil


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Pattie, Geoffrey


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jopling, Michael
Penhaligon, David


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Percival, Ian


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Perry, Ernest


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kershaw, Anthony
Pink, R. Bonner


Drayson, Burnaby
Kilfedder, James
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kimball, Marcus
Price. David (Eastleigh)


Dunnett, Jack
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Durant, Tony
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Raison, Timothy


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rathbone, Tim


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Knox, David
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Lamond, James
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Elliott, Sir William
Lamont, Norman
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Emery, Peter
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


English, Michael
Lawrence, Ivan
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lawson, Nigel
Rhodes James, R.


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Eyre, Reginald
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Ridsdale, Julian







Rifkind, Malcolm
Spence, John
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Robinson, Geoffrey
Sproat, lain
Wall, Patrick


Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Stainton, Keith
Walters, Dennis


Roper, John
Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Stanley, John
Watkins, David


Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Watkinson, John


Royle, Sir Anthony
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Weatherill, Bernard


Sainsbury, Tim
Stokes, John
Wells, John


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Stradling Thomas, J.
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Sandelson, Neville
Strang, Gavin
Whitehead, Phillip


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Tapsell, Peter
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Wiggin, Jerry


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wigley, Dafydd


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Tebbit, Norman
Willey, RI Hon Frederick


Shepherd, Colin
Temple-Morris, Peter
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Shersby, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Winterton, Nicholas


Sillars, James
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Silvester, Fred
Tomlinson, John
Woodall, Alec


Sims, Roger
Tomney, Frank
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Sinclair, Sir George
Tuck, Raphael
Younger, Hon George


Skeet, T. H. H.
van Straubenzee, W. R.



Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Viggers, Peter
Mr, Timothy Kitson and


Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Mr. Nicholas Scott.


Speed, Keith
Wakeham, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed, at end add:
'and since his conduct was inconsistent with the standards the House is entitled to expect from its Members suspends him from membership of this House for six months and suspends his salary as a Member for that period;

these suspensions to be Standing Orders of the House'.—[Mr. Strauss.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided:Ayes 97 Noes 324.

Division No.214]
AYES
[10.2 p.m.


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Atkinson, Norman
Graham, Ted
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Bates, Alf
Grocott, Bruce
Richardson, Miss Jo


Bean, R. E.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central File)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Beith, A. J.
Hatton, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hooley, Frank
Sillars, James


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Skinner, Dennis


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Huckfield, Les
Snape, Peter


Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sprigqs, Leslie


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Stallard, A. W.


Buchan, Norman
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Stewart, Rt Hon Donald


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Johnson, James (Hull West)
Stoddart, David


Canavan, Dennis
Kinnock, Neil
Stott, Roger


Carmichael, Nell
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lee, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Clemitson, Ivor
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Loyden, Eddie
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Crawshaw, Richard
McElhone, Frank
Urwin, T. W.


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
McNamara, Kevin
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Madden, Max
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Deakins, Eric
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Maynard, Miss Joan
Watkinson, John


Dormand, J. D.
Mendelson, John
Whitehead, Phillip


Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Mikardo, Ian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Evans, loan (Aberdare)
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Evans, John (Newton)
Noble, Mike
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray]
Palmer, Arthur



Flannery, Martin
Parker, John
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Parry, Robert
Mr. Nigel Spearing and


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. William Small.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Penhaligon, David





NOES


Adley, Robert
Awdry, Daniel
Bennett, De Reginald (Fareham)


Aitken, Michael
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Benyon, W.


Alison, Michael
Baker, Kenneth
Bitten, John


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Bennett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Biggs-Davison, John


Arnold, Tom
Bell, Ronald
Blaker, Peter


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Boardman, H.




Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gorst, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Bottomlev, Peter
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Mills, Peter


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Miscampbell, Norman


Bradley, Tom
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Gray, Hamish
Moate, Roger


Britten, Leon
Grieve, Percy
Molyneaux, James


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Griffiths, Eldon
Monro, Hector


Brooke, Peter
Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Montgomery, Fergus


Brotherton, Michael
Grist, Ian
Moore, John (Croydon C)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Morgan, Geraint


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hannam, John
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Moyle, Roland


Buck, Antony
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Mudd, David


Budgen, Nick
Harvie Anderson, Rt hon Miss
Neave, Airey


Bulmer, Esmond
Haselhurst, Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hastings, Stephen
Neubert, Michael


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Newens, Stanley


Cant, R. B.
Hawkins, Paul
Newton, Tony


Carlisle, Mark
Hayhoe, Barney
Normanton, Tom


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Nott, John


Channon, Paul
Heseltine, Michael
O'Halloran, Michael


Churchill, W. S.
Higgins, Terence L.
Onslow, Cranley


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Holland, Philip
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hordern, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Clegg, Walter
Howell, David (Guildford)
Osborn, John


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Ovenden, John


Coleman, Donald
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Padley, Walter


Conlan, Bernard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Page, John (Harrow West)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Hunt, David (Wirral)
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)


Cope, John
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Page, Richard (Workington)


Costain, A. P.
Hurd, Douglas
Pardoe, John


Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Parkinson, Cecil


Crawford, Douglas
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Pattie, Geoffrey


Crouch, David
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Percival, Ian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Perry, Ernest


Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Jopling, Michael
Peyton, Rt Hon John


Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Joseph, RI Hon Sir Keith
Pink, R. Bonner


Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg


Drayson, Burnaby
Kershaw, Anthony
Price, David (Eastleigh)


du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Kilfedder, James
Prior, Rt Hon James


Duffy, A. E. P.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Dunnett, Jack
Kimball, Marcus
Raison, Timothy


Durant, Tony
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Rathbone, Tim


Dykes, Hugh
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knight, Mrs Jill
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)


Elliott, Sir William
Knox, David
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Lamond, James
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)


Emery, Peter
Lamont, Norman
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)


English, Michael
Longford-Holt, Sir John
Rhodes James, R.


Ennals, David
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Lawrence, Ivan
Ridley, Hon Nicholas


Eyre, Reginald
Lawson, Nigel
Ridsdale, Julian


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Le Marchant, Spencer
Rifkind, Malcolm


Fairgrieve, Russell
Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)


Farr, John
Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Fell, Anthony
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Finsberg, Geoffrey
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Fisher, Sir Nigel
Lloyd, Ian
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)


Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Loveridge, John
Roper, John


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Luce, Richard
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fookes, Miss Janet
McCrindle, Robert
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
McCusker, H.
Royle, Sir Anthony


Ford, Ben
Macfarlane, Neil
Sainsbury, Tim


Forman, Nigel
MacFarquhar, Roderick
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Forrester, John
MacGregor, John
Sandelson, Neville


Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Scott, Nicholas


Fox, Marcus
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Freud, Clement
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fry, Peter
Madel, David
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.
Magee, Bryan
Shepherd, Colin


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Mahon, Simon
Shersby, Michael


Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Silvester, Fred


Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Marten, Neil
Sims, Roger


Ginsburg, David
Mates, Michael
Sinclair, Sir George


Glyn, Dr Alan
Mather, Carol
Skeet, T. H. H.


Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
Maude, Angus
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Goodhart, Philip
Mawby, Ray
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Goodhew, Victor
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Goodlad, Alastair
Mayhew, Patrick
Speed, Keith







Spence, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Wells, John


Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Tinn, James
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Tomlinson, John
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Sproat, Iain
Tomney, Frank
Wiggin, Jerry


Stainton, Keith
Tuck, Raphael
Wlgley, Dafydd


Stanbrook, Ivor
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Stanley, John
Vaughan, Dr Gerald
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Viggers, Peter
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stokes, John
Wakeham, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Stradling Thomas, J.
Welder, David (Clitheroe)
Woodall, Alec


Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Younger, Hon George


Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Wall, Patrick



Tebbit, Norman
Walters, Dennis
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Temple-Morris, Peter
Warren, Kenneth
Mr. Patrick Cormack and


Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Weatherill, Bernard
Mr. Robert Banks.


Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Committee insofar as it relates to Mr. Reginald Maudling.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House agrees with the Report of the Committee insofar as it relates to Mr. Albert Roberts.—[Mr. Foot.]

Amendment proposed, leave out 'agrees with' and insert 'takes note of'. —[Mr. Ronald Bell.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 288, Noes 144.

Division No. 215]
AYES
[10.15 p.m.


Adley, Robert
Cowans, Harry
Gourlay, Harry


Altken, Jonathan
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Alison, Michael
Crouch, David
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Dean, Joseph (Leads Wast)
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Armstrong, Ernest
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Grieve, Percy


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Griffiths, Eldon


Awdry, Daniel
Drayson, Burnaby
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Grist, Ian


Baker, Kenneth
Duffy, A. E. P.
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.


Banks, Robert
Dunnett, Jack
Hamilton, James (Both well)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Durant, Tony
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Dykes, Hugh
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Hannam, John


Benyon, W.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Harper, Joseph


Biggs-Davison, John
Elliott, Sir William
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Boardman, H.
English, Michael
Haselhurst, Alan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Ennals, David
Hastings, Stephen


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Eyre, Reginald
Hawkins, Paul


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Fairbairn, Nicholas
Heath, Rt Hon Edward


Bradley, Tom
Fairgrieve, Russall
Heseltine, Michael


Braine, Sir Bernard
Farr, John
Higgins, Terence L.


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Fell, Anthony
Holland, Philip


Brooke, Peter
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Hordern, Peter


Brotherton, Michael
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hunt, David (Wirral)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hunter, Adam


Bryan, Sir Paul
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Hurd, Douglas


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Ford, Ben
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Buck, Antony
Forrester, John
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Fox, Marcus
Jeger, Mrs Lena


Cant, R. B.
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)
Johnson, James (Hull West)


Carlisle, Mark
Freud, Clement
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)


Castle, Rt Hon Barbara
Fry, Peter
Jopling, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D,
Kaberry, Sir Donald


Channon, Paul
Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Churchill, W. S.
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)
Kerr, Russell


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chasham)
Kershaw, Anthony


Clegg, Walter
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Kilfedder, James


Cohen, Stanley
Ginsburg, David
Kimball, Marcus


Coleman, Donald
Glyn, Dr Alan
King, Evelyn (South Dorset)


Conlan, Bernard
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph
King, Tom (Bridgwater)


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Goodhart, Philip
Kitson, Sir Timothy


Cope, John
Goodhew, Victor
Knight, Mrs Jill


Cormack, Patrick
Goodlad, Alastair
Knox, David


Costain, A. P.
Gorst, John
Lamond, James




Lamont, Norman
Osborn, John
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Padley, Walter
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Lawrence, Ivan
Page, John (Harrow West)
Speed, Keith


Le Marchant, Spencer
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Spence, John


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Page, Richard (Workington)
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Pardoe, John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Parkinson, Cecil
Sproat, Iain


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Pattie, Geoffrey
Stainton, Keith


Lloyd, Ian
Percival, Ian
Stanbrook, Ivor


Loveridge, John
Perry, Ernest
Stanley, John


Luce, Richard
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Pink, R. Bonner
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


McCrindle, Robert
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Stokes, John


Macfarlane, Neil
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Stradling Thomas, J.


MacGregor, John
Prior, Rt Hon James
Tapsell, Peter


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Raison, Timothy
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Rathbone, Tim
Tebbit, Norman


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Tomlinson, John


Madel, David
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Tomney, Frank


Mahon, Simon
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Tuck, Raphael


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Marten, Neil
Rhodes James, R
Wakeham, John


Mather, Carol
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Mawby, Ray
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Ridsdale, Julian
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wall, Patrick


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Walters, Dennis


Mills, Peter
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Ward, Michael


Miscampbell, Norman
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Warren, Kenneth


Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Watkins, David


Moate, Roger
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Weatherill, Bernard


Molloy, William
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Wells, John


Monro, Hector
Royle, Sir Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Montgomery, Fergus
Sainsbury, Tim
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Moore, John (Croydon C)
Sandelson, Neville
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Morgan, Geraint
Scott, Nicholas
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mudd, David
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Neave, Airey
Shelton, William (Streatham)
Woodall, Alec


Nelson, Anthony
Shepherd, Colin
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Newton, Tony
Shersby, Michael
Younger, Hon George


Normanton, Tom
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)



Nott, John
Silvester, Fred
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Ogden, Eric
Sinclair, Sir George
Mr. Ronald Bell and


O'Halloran, Michael
Skeet, T. H. H.
Mr. Charles Morrison.


Onslow, Cranley






NOES


Allaun, Frank
Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Lee, John


Ashton, Joe
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)


Bates, Alf
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loyden, Eddie


Bean, R. E.
Flannery, Martin
McCusker, H.


Beith, A. J.
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Bidwell, Sydney
Forman, Nigel
McElhone, Frank


Biffen, John
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
MacFarquhar, Roderick


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Garrett, John (Norwich S)
McNamara, Kevin


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
George, Bruce
Madden, Max


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Graham, Ted
Magee, Bryan


Bottomley, Peter
Grocott, Bruce
Marks, Kenneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)


Britten, Leon
Harvie Anderson, Rt hon Miss
Mates, Michael


Buchan, Norman
Hatton, Frank
Maynard, Miss Joan


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Mendelson, John


Canavan, Dennis
Heffer, Eric S.
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Carmichael, Neil
Hooley, Frank
Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Hooson, Emlyn
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)


Clemitson, Ivor
Horam, John
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Molyneaux, James


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Moyle, Roland


Crawford, Douglas
Huckfield, Les
Neubert, Michael


Crawshaw, Richard
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Newens, Stanley


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)



Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Hunt, John (Bromley)
Noble, Mike


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Palmer, Arthur


Deakins, Eric
Janner, Greville
Parker, John


Dunlop, John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parry, Robert


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Pavitt, Laurie


Eadie, Alex
Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Penhaligon, David


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Kinnock, Neil
Prescott, John


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Lamble, David
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Evans, John (Newton)
Latham, Michael (Melton)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis







Richardson, Miss Jo
Stallard, A. W.
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Stott, Roger
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Strang, Gavin
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Rooker, J. W.
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Watkinson, John


Roper, John
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Temple-Morris, Peter
Whitehead, Phillip


Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Whitlock, William


St. John-Stevas, Norman
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Wigley, Dafydd


Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Sillars, James
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


Sims, Roger
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Skinner, Dennis
Tierney, Sydney
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Small, William
Tinn, James



Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)
Urwin, T. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Snape, Peter
van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mr. George Cunningham and


Spearing, Nigel
Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett,


Spriggs, Leslie

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendment proposed, at end add:
'and that Mr. Roberts be expelled this House.'.—[Mr. William Hamilton.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg(seated and covered): On a point of

order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to direct that the Division be taken by a show of hands rather than the House going through this tedious method of voting?

Mr. Speaker: I must put the Question. The House does not have to be patient for very much longer. There is only one other amendment.

The House having divided: Ayes 11, Noes 353.

Division No.216]
AYES
[10.28 p.m.


Canavan, Dennis
Rooker, J. W.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Flannery, Martin
Skinner, Dennis



Loyden, Eddie
Spriggs, Leslie
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Maynard, Miss Joan
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Mr. William Hamilton and


Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Mr. Neil Kinnock.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Buck, Antony
English, Michael


Alison, Michael
Budgen, Nick
Ennals, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Eyre, Reginald


Armstrong, Ernest
Cant, R. B.
Fairgrieve, Russell


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Carlisle, Mark
Farr, John


Awdry, Daniel
Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fell, Anthony


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Churchill, W. S.
Finsberg, Geoffrey


Baker, Kenneth
Clark, William (Croydon S)
Fisher, Sir Nigel


Banks, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Clegg, Walter
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)


Bates, Alf
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Beith, A. J.
Cohen, Stanley
Fookes, Miss Janet


Bell, Ronald
Conlan, Bernard
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Ford, Ben


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Cope, John
Forman, Nigel


Benyon, W.
Cormack, Patrick
Forrester, John


Biffen, John
Cowans, Harry
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)


Biggs-Davison, John
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Crawford, Douglas
Fox, Marcus


Blaker, Peter
Crawshaw, Richard
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Boardman, H.
Crouch, David
Freud, Clement


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fry, Peter


Bottomley, Peter
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bradley, Tom
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Garrett, John (Norwich S)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Drayson, Burnaby
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Brittan, Leon
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Duffy, A. E. P.
Ginsburg, David


Brooke, Peter
Dunnett, Jack
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brotherton, Michael
Durant, Tony
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Dykes, Hugh
Goodhart, Philip


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Goodhew, Victor


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bryan, Sir Paul
Elliott, Sir William
Gorst, John


Buchanan, Richard
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Gourlay, Harry


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Emery, Peter
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)




Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)
Madel, David
Sainsbury, Tim


Graham, Ted
Magee, Bryan
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)
Mahon, Simon
Sandelson, Neville


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Grieve, Percy
Marks, Kenneth
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Griffiths, Eldon
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Grimond, Rt Hon J.
Marten, Neil
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Grist, Ian
Mates, Michael
Shepherd, Colin


Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Mather, Carol
Shersby, Michael


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Maude, Angus
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Mawby, Ray
Sillars, James


Hampson, Dr Keith
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Silverman, Julius


Hannam, John
Mayhew, Patrick
Silvester, Fred


Harper, Joseph
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Sims, Roger


Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Sinclair, Sir George


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Miscampbell, Norman
Skeet, T. H. H.


Harvie Anderson, Rt hon Miss
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Haselhurst, Alan
Moate, Roger
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael
Molloy, William
Smith, Timothy John (Ashfield)


Hawkins, Paul
Molyneaux, James
Spence, John


Hayhoe, Barney
Monro, Hector
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Heffer, Eric S.
Morgan, Geraint
Sproat, lain


Higgins, Terence L.
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Stainton, Keith


Holland, Philip
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hooson, Emlyn
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stanley, John


Hordern, Peter
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Moyle, Roland
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Mudd, David
Stokes, John


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Neave, Airey
Stradling Thomas, J.


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Nelson, Anthony
Strang, Gavin


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Neubert, Michael
Tapsell, Peter


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Newens, Stanley
Tapsell, Peter


Hunter, Adam
Newton, Tony
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


Hurd, Douglas
Normanton, Tom
Tebbit, Norman


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
O'Halloran, Michael
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Onslow, Cranley
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Openheim, Mrs Sally
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Tinn, James


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Osborn, John
Tomlinson John


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Ovenden, John
Tomney, Frank


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Padley, Walter
Tuck, Raphael


Jopling, Michael
Page, John (Harrow West)
Tuck, Raphael


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, Rt Hon R. Grahanm (Crosby)
van Straubenzee, W.R.


Jopling, Michael
Page, Richard (Workington)
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Viggers, Peter


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, Richard (Workington)
Viggers, Peter


Kershaw, Anthony
Pardoe, John
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Kilfedder, James
Parkinson, Cecil
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Pattie, Geoffrey
Wakeham, John


Kimball, Marcus
Penhaligon, David
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Percival, Ian
Walder, Harold (Doncaster)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Perry, Ernest
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Knight, Mrs Jill
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Knox, David
Pink, R. Bonner
Wall, Patrick


Lamble, David
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch



Lamond, James
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Walters, Dennis


Lamont, Norman
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Ward, Michael


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Prior, Rt Hon James
Warren, Kenneth


Latham, Arthur (Paddington)
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Watkins, David


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Raison, Timothy
Watkinson, John


Lawrence, Ivan
Rathbone, Tim
Weatherill, Bernard


Lawson, Nigel
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wells, John


Le Marchant, Spencer
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Whitehead, Phillip


Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Rees-Davies, W.R.
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Wiggin, Jerry


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Wigley, Dafydd


Lloyd, Ian
Rhodes James, R.
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Loveridge, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Luce, Richard
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Ridsdale, Julian
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wilson, William (Coventry SE)


McCrindle, Robert
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Winterton, Nicholas


McCusker, H.
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Macfarlane, Neil
Robinson, Geoffrey
Woodall, Alec


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


MacGregor, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Younger, Hon George


McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Roper, John



Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Sir Timothy Kitson and


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Royle, Sir Anthony
Mr. Nicholas Scott.


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)

Question accordingly negatived.

Amendment proposed, at end add:
'and since his conduct was inconsistent with the standards the House is entitled to expect from its Members suspends him from membership of this House for six months and suspends his salary as a Member for that

period; these suspensions to be Standing Orders of the House'.—[Mr. Strauss.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 78, Noes 329.

Division No. 217
AYES
[10.40 p.m.


Ashton, Joe
George, Bruce
Prescott, John


Bates, Alf
Grocott, Bruce
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Been R. E.
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Richardson, Miss Jo


Beith, A. J.
Heffer, Eric S.
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hooley, Frank
Rooker, J. W.


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)


Booth, Rt Hon Albert
Huckfield, Les
Sillars, James


Boothroyd, Miss Betty
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Skinner, Dennis


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Snape, Peter


Buchan, Norman
Kinnock, Neil
Spriggs, Leslie


Canavan, Dennis
Lee, John
Stallard, A. W.


Carmichael, Neil
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton &amp; Slough)
Stoddart, David


Clemitson, Ivor
Loyden, Eddie
Stott, Roger


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.


Crawshaw, Richard
McElhone, Frank
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)


Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
McNamara, Kevin
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)


Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Madden, Max
Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)


Deakins, Eric
Maynard, Miss Joan
Thorne, Stan (Preston South)


Dormand, J. D.
Mendelson, John
Urwin, T. W.


Dunlop, John
Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Walker, Terry (Kingswood)


Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Mitchell, Austin Vernon (Grimsby)
Watkinson, John


Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Noble, Mike
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)


Evans, John (Newton)
Palmer, Arthur
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Parker, John



Flannery, Martin
Parry, Robert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Pavitt, Laurie
Mr. Nigel Spearing and


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Penhaligon, David
Mr. William Small.


Garrett, John (Norwich S)






NOES


Adley, Robert
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Ford, Ben


Alison, Michael
Clegg, Walter
Forman, Nigel


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Forrester, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cohen, Stanley
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'&amp;'d)


Armstrong, Ernest
Coleman, Donald
Fox, Marcus


Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Conlan, Bernard
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford &amp; St)


Awdry, Daniel
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Freud, Clement


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Cope, John
Fry, Peter


Banks, Robert
Cormack, Patrick
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D.


Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)
Cowans, Harry
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Bell, Ronald
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)
Crawford, Douglas
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)


Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)
Crouch, David
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)


Benyon, W.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Ginsburg, David


Biffen, John
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Glyn, Dr Alan


Biggs-Davison, John
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Goodhart, Philip


Bishop, Rt Hon Edward
Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Goodhew, Victor


Blaker, Peter
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Goodlad, Alastair


Boardman, H.
Drayson, Burnaby
Gorst, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Gourlay, Harry


Bottomley, Peter
Duffy, A. E. P.
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)


Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Dunnett, Jack
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)


Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent]
Durant, Tony
Graham, Ted


Bradley, Tom
Dykes, Hugh
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)


Braine, Sir Bernard
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Grant, George (Morpeth)


Britten, Leon
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grieve, Percy


Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Elliott, Sir William
Griffiths, Eldon


Brooke, Peter
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Grimond, Rt Hon J.


Brotherton, Michael
Emery, Peter
Grist, Ian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
English, Michael
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)
Eyre, Reginald
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bryan, Sir Paul
Fairgrieve, Russell
Hannam, John


Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Farr, John
Harper, Joseph


Buck, Antony
Fell, Anthony
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)


Budgen, Nick
Finsberg, Geoffrey
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Fisher, Sir Nigel
Harvie Anderson, Rt hon Miss


Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Haselhurst, Alan


Cant, R. B.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hawkins, Paul


Churchill, W. S.
Fookes, Miss Janet
Hayhoe, Barney


Clark, William (Croydon S)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Heath, Rt Hon Edward




Higgins, Terence L.
Miscampbell, Norman
Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)


Holland, Philip
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hordern, Peter
Moate, Roger
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Molyneaux, James
Shepherd, Colin


Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Monro, Hector
Shersby, Michael


Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Moore, John (Croydon C)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)


Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Morgan, Geraint
Silverman, Julius


Hunt, David (Wirral)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Silvester, Fred


Hunt, John (Bromley)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Sims, Roger


Hunter, Adam
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Sinclair, Sir George


Hurd, Douglas
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Moyle, Roland
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Mudd, David
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)


Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Neave, Airey
Smith, Timothy (Ashfield)


Jeger, Mrs Lena
Nelson, Anthony
Spence, John


Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd &amp; W'df'd)
Neubert, Michael
Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)


Johnson, James (Hull West)
Newens, Stanley
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)


Johnson, Walter (Derby S)
Newton, Tony
Sproat, Iain


Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Normanton, Tom
Stainton, Keith


Jopling, Michael
Nott, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Ogden, Eric
Stanley, John


Kaberry, Sir Donald
O'Halloran, Michael
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)


Kershaw, Anthony
Onslow, Cranley
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)


Kilfedder, James
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Stokes, John


Kilroy-Silk, Robert
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Stradling Thomas, J.


Kimball, Marcus
Osborn, John
Tapsell, Peter


King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Ovenden, John
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)


King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Padley, Walter
Tebbit, Norman


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Page, John (Harrow West)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Knight, Mrs Jill
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Knox, David
Page, Richard (Workington)
Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)


Lamble, David
Pardoe, John
Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)


Lamond, James
Parkinson, Cecil
Tomlinson, John


Lamont, Norman
Pattie, Geoffrey
Tomney, Frank


Langford-Holt, Sir John
Percival, Ian
Tuck, Raphael


Latham, Michael (Melton)
Perry, Ernest
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lawrence, Ivan
Peyton, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Dr Gerald


Lawson, Nigel
Pink, R. Bonner
Viggers, Peter


Le Marchant, Spencer
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)


Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wakeham, John


Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Prior, Rt Hon James
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Lloyd, Ian
Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Loveridge, John
Raison, Timothy
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)


Luce, Richard
Rathbone, Tim
Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek


Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Wall, Patrick


Mabon, Rt Hon Dr J. Dickson
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Walters, Dennis


McCrindle, Robert
Rees, Peter (Dover &amp; Deal)
Ward, Michael


McCusker, H.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Warren, Kenneth


Macfarlane, Neil
Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Watkins, David


MacFarquhar, Roderick
Rhodes James, R.
Weatherill, Bernard


MacGregor, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Wells, John


Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
White, Frank R. (Bury)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Ridsdale, Julian
Whitelaw, Rt Hon William


Madel, David
Rifkind, Malcolm
Wiggin, Jerry


Magee, Bryan
Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mahon, Simon
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Willey, Rt Hon Frederick


Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Marks, Kenneth
Robinson, Geoffrey
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Marten, Neil
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Winterton, Nicholas


Mates, Michael
Roper, John
Wood, Rt Hon Richard


Mather, Carol
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Woodall, Alec


Maude, Angus
Royle, Sir Anthony
Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)


Mawby, Ray
Sainsbury, Tim
Younger, Hon George


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
St. John-Stevas, Norman



Mayhew, Patrick
Sandelson, Neville
TELLERS FOR THE NOES


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Scott, Nicholas
Mr. Mark Carlisle and


Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Kenneth Baker.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Report of the Committee insofar as it relates to Mr. Albert Roberts.

Mr. Martin Flannery: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must put the Ten o'clock motion.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion relating to Members' Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance, the Motion relating to Members' Salaries and Pensions, the Motion relating to Sound Broadcasting and the Motion relating to Sound Broadcasting (Joint Committee) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half past Eleven o'clock or for one and half hours

after each has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Tinn.]

CONDUCT OF MEMBERS

Mr. Flannery: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your advice. Would it be possible for the two Front Benches to get together and ask the former Member for Bournemouth, East, Mr. John Cordle, to come back and tell him that all is forgiven?

OVERSEAS AID (AFRICANM DEVELOPMENT FUND)

10.55 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Overseas Development (Mr. John Tomlinson): I beg to move,
That the draft African Development Fund (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.
The African Development Fund started operating in 1973 as the concessional loan arm of the African Development Bank. Membership of the Bank, which operates along normal commercial lines, is restricted to independent African States. The Fund, whose membership now includes most of the industrialised Western countries, lends on very soft terms to finance development projects undertaken by those African countries which would have greatest difficulty in servicing external debt on commercial or near-commercial terms. Since January 1977 the principal guideline for Fund lending has been to give priority to countries with a 1975 gross national product of less than $400 a head.
The United Kingdom was a founder member of the Fund with a subscription of 5,211,420 units of account—approximately £2 million.
Late in 1974 the Fund calculated that commitments would soon exceed the resources provided for the first three-year operating period. Members of the Fund approved a special increase of resources, but resulting pledges were insufficient to allow the desirable rate of further commitment up to the end of the first triennium in July 1976. The Fund therefore decided to terminate its first operating period at 31st December 1975 and sought new pledges to support commitments during a new triennium from 1st January 1976.
The agreement establishing the Fund defines the unit of account as being equal to a fraction of a gramme of gold. But following the demonetisation of gold in July 1974 sterling could not properly be converted into Fund units of account to determine the value of the subscriptions of Her Majesty's Government to the special increase and the first replenish-

ment. In this situation we were unable to subscribe. However, the Fund is expected to amend its articles as soon as possible to value its unit of account in terms of IMF special drawing rights. Being anxious to participate in maintaining Fund activity at what we believe to be an appropriate level, the Government have now, subject to approval of the House, agreed to make payments to the Fund's capital stock. These payments, when made, must be valued in terms of an internationally recognised unit. This unit will now be an agreed fraction of our IMF special drawing right.
The purpose of the order now before the House is to enable the United Kingdom to make the following payments to the African Development Fund: first, £2 million as further payment to the capital stock; secondly, the additional sum of £8 million as further payment to the capital stock for the Fund's second operating period of three years beginning on 1st January 1976; and, thirdly, to maintain the foreign exchange value of the further payments so authorised. Both these further payments will attract voting rights.
I am sure that hon. Members will wish to approve this order to maintain the level of Her Majesty's Government's active participation in the work of the Fund in providing development aid to the poorest countries in Africa.

10.59 p.m.

Mr. Richard Luce: It is perhaps strange that we should be taking an order of this nature on the Floor of the House. In view of the heavy pressure of business that must be got through, I shall endeavour to be brief. But it would be absolutely wrong to allow this order to go through without posing one or two scrutinising questions as we are being invited to approve the payment of an extra £10 million of taxpayers' money to the African Development Fund.
I should make it clear that I certainly do not oppose the order. The initial subscription order to the African Development Fund was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1973 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bridlington (Mr. Wood).
When we are considering the provision of money of this nature it is right that we should examine it in the context of


Whether it will be of real and practical benefit not only to the countries to which it goes but to ourselves. It must be considered in the context of developing and enhancing the trade between Britain and the countries that benefit from the aid.
I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to comment briefly on several issues. The Explanatory Memorandum states that one of the objectives is to maintain the foreign exchange value of the further payments. What exactly are the implications of that for the British taxpayer? What are the implications in terms of fluctuations in the pound? Have we agreed to such arrangements for other overseas development funds?
How sound are the operations of the Fund? To what extent is there a commercial criterion in the operation of the Fund? How viable are the Fund's projects?
Can the Parliamentary Secretary confirm whether the money is provided within the context of the changing emphasis in British aid, which means that greater emphasis is put on the poorer countries and rural areas? Do more and more projects now comply with the new priorities? If they do not, they do not fit within the overall objectives of our aid policy.
I should like the Minister to comment on the Government's view of the efficiency in the deployment of multilateral aid. Do the Government intend to spend more money on this type of banking operation, as opposed to providing money through United Nations agencies? Have the Government formed a view about the relative efficiency of the different multilateral agencies? It is important that they do.
Since we are the principal donor, what evidence is there that a considerable number of orders for the equipment for these projects come to Great Britain? It is important that we should know at least whether we are getting some return benefit.
My last general point concerns our rôle as donor. What is Britain's share of the total resources of the Development Fund? The Government's White Paper of autumn 1975 emphasised the importance of the rôle of the Arab oil-producing countries in the development of the

Third world. What rôle are the Arab oil-producing countries playing in the Fund? Are any of these countries members of the Fund. If so, what resources do they contribute?
We must remember that we are being asked to approve the provision of £10 million of taxpayers' money.

11.5 p.m.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: I am entirely in favour of the generality of providing funds from this country and the developed world as a whole to the developing world. I say that before I ask the Minister one question: Will he tell us whether any of the fund for which further benefits are being paid is being sent to Mozambique in present circumstances?

11.6 p.m.

Mr. Tomlinson: I thank the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) for the general support he has given to the African Development Fund Order.
In relation to the maintenance of value, he asked what we had done concerning other funds. I give him the case of the fourth replenishment of the IDA as an example where we have managed to get a situation where there is no obligation for the maintenance of value contribution. However, that is not the case with the African Development Fund, and it is Her Majesty's Government's intention to seek amendment of Article 13 of the Fund's charter to remove the requirement for maintenance of value before the next replenishment becomes effective in 1979.
It was not practicable to do this in circumstances where we were challenging the validity of the Fund's unit of account, but when that is settled we shall press strongly with the Fund—and the managers of the Fund are aware that we shall do this—for removal of that requirement.
In the meantime we have to make provision for the existing obligation but we shall press most strongly for removal of maintenance of value obligation before coming to the next replenishment.
On the hon. Member's question about the efficiency of the Fund. I said in opening that the bank applies commercial criteria on this, although the terms of the loans are very soft and concessional. Commercial criteria are applied in the use of money.
The hon. Member asked whether the activities of the Fund coincide with the objectives of our aid policy. Clearly, the emphasis of the activities of the African Development Fund is in line with our aid policy.
The Fund concentrates its activities on countries where the average per capita income in 1975 was less than $400.
On the more general question of multilateral and bilateral aid, we could spend a long time in discussion but in the context of this order it would be wrong to give a glib or superficial reply. There are major advantages and disadvantages which vary between different multilateral organisations and I should not like to give a simple one- or two-sentence answer. It depends which multilateral agencies one is talking about, but the present balance in our aid policy is about right.
On the matter of benefits to the United Kingdom, I question the words that the hon. Member for Shoreham used when he said that we are a principal donor. The share of United Kingdom resources in the Fund is only 4·37 of the Fund.
A large number of countries contribute more: Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Norway, Sweden and the United States are all higher-percentage donors. Of the Arab countries, the sum contribution of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar is 10 to 11 per cent.,

which is two and a half times greater than the contribution of the United Kingdom, but benefits to the United Kingdom exist, although not to the same degree as in some bilateral projects, because the contribution to the Fund is largely in rural development and agriculture where there is not necessarily the same degree of spin-off as there would be in other areas of activity.

Mr. Luce: Has any calculation been done on the basis of past evidence?

Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot say that for this Fund a calculation has been done of which I am aware. I shall look into the matter and write to the hon. Member about it, trying to give him fuller information.
I think that those remarks cover the main thrust of the hon. Member's question.
On the question of Mozambique, the list of recipient beneficiary countries of ADF loans that I have before me does not include Mozambique.
I think that I have answered all the specific questions that have been raised. I commend the order to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft African Development Fund (Further Payments to Capital Stock) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 12th July, be approved.

HOUSING (OPTION MORTGAGE SUBSIDY)

11.11 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I beg to move,
That the draft Assistance for House Purchase and Improvement (Variation of Subsidy) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.
This draft order modifies the scale of option mortgage subsidy at present set out in Statutory Instrument 1975 No. 1240. The House will be aware that the option mortgage scheme is open to any house purchaser who chooses to receive assistance by means of an interest-related subsidy, equivalent to the help which would be available through tax relief at the basic rate on full mortgage interest. We estimate that at present about three-quarters of a million householders are buying their own homes with the help of an option mortgage.
On this occasion, as the Chancellor announced on 15th July, tax is being reduced from 35 per cent. to 34 per cent. With effect from 1st October 1977, the existing rates of subsidy will be reduced by 0·1 per cent. This will mean that equality of treatment will be preserved as between the option mortgagor and the mortgagor eligible for full tax relief at the new basic rate.
I am sure it is still the general wish of the House that the option mortgagor should be kept on the same footing as those who receive assistance through tax relief. It is to preserve this principle of comparability that this order has been introduced, and I hope the House will approve it.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury: The Opposition accept that the option mortgagor, as the Minister said, should be kept on the same basis. It is an interesting commentary on the way that we describe things in the House that every time the subsidy is increased we introduce an "increase of subsidy" order, whereas if the subsidy is to be decreased we intro-duce a "variation of subsidy" order. I suggest that we should be a little more honest and call an increase an increase and a decrease a decrease.
The Minister estimates that three-quarters of a million householders are currently benefiting from the scheme. How many householders purchasing perhaps mainly for the first time would be likely to benefit from the scheme? I feel that the option mortgage scheme is generally insufficiently known amongst the public. What plans does the Minister have for increasing the publicity given to the availability of the scheme, which is very valuable particularly in helping first-time buyers, particularly young buyers, to get a first step on the ladder of home ownership?
Furthermore, will the Government now consider making it easier for people to enter the scheme by allowing the switch from option mortgages to regular mortgages at less than four years after the option mortgage is initially taken up? I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that, particularly in times of economic uncertainty—which seem to accompany the present Government—many first-time house buyers will be uncertain whether, over a period of as long as four years, the option mortgage will continue to be a benefit to them. It seems to me much more sensible to allow a switch after one year, as the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors has recommended, or perhaps after two or three years. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government are giving active consideration to varying that condition?

11.15 p.m.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: I should like the Minister to clarify one point. As I understand it, the incidence of option mortgages is particularly high amongst first-time buyers who, for the most part, wish to borrow the maximum percentage and obtain their repayment under what is called the annuity-type mortgage. It is normally only the more affluent type of borrower who wishes to repay on the endowment-type mortgage. The difference is that with an endowment mortgage there is tax relief not only on the interest content but on the capital repayment represented by the endowment premium.
Can the hon. Gentleman say in what circumstances it would be possible for an option mortgage to be tied to an endowment mortgage, in view of the fact that the number of first-time buyers who


could possibly take advantage of endowment mortgages must be small? If they are not paying sufficient tax, how can they get tax relief on the capital aspect represented by the endowment?

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Armstrong: I take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I cannot give the information off the cuff, but I shall give him the full information as soon as I can.
I take the point that was made about publicity. I welcome the interest of the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury) in this matter. We receive various submissions from time to time about switching in. People can switch in after one year, and switch out after four years, but I cannot give a definite commitment on behalf of the Government.
I thought that the scheme was fairly widely known, but I take note of what the hon. Gentleman said about publicity.
I respect what the hon. Gentleman said about anxiety with regard to the change in the subsidy. We shall write to the authorities concerned, to the lenders, local authorities, building societies, and so on, within 10 days so that they can in good time notify those who are in the scheme. I take the point about extending the scheme and about publicity. This is always a difficult matter, and I shall be in touch with the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. McCrindle: I apologise for pressing this further, but the House is being asked to approve an order which, in the explanatory note, refers to endowment mortgages. If, as I contend, it is almost impossible—

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The hon. Member

has already taken part in the debate. In an effort to be helpful, may I ask whether he is raising a point of order?

Mr. McCrindle: I was not seeking to raise a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was proposing, with the permission of the House, to ask how we could possibly support this order when the Minister is unable to answer when I raise a point on the wording of the order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry, but even if the Chair knew the answer it would not be permitted to give it. Has the Minister anything further to say?

Mr. Armstrong: I appreciate the point that has been raised. We cannot give an estimate of take-up, but I do not think that that is relevant to the order, the purpose of which is to bring the option mortgage into line with the decrease in the income tax rate for the purpose of tax relief, and so on.

Mr. Sainsbury: I wonder whether, to help the House and to further our consideration of the order, the Minister would write to my hon. Friend and myself indicating how many of the option mortgages in existence were granted under column 2 of the schedule, and how many were granted under column 3, so that we are clear as to the division between endowment and annuity mortgages.

Mr. Armstrong: Yes.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Assistance for House Purchase and Improvement (Variation of Subsidy) Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 15th July, be approved.

MEMBERS' OFFICE, SECRETARIAL AND RESEARCH ALLOWANCE

Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Myer Galpern): I call the Leader of the House—

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Do I take it that we are considering Items 4 and 5 on the Order Paper?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have not heard what motion the Lord President is proposing to move. I am waiting to hear what he proposes should be taken together.

11.19 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): With permission, and in accordance with your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on 7th July when the House agreed not to proceed with the business before it, I shall in the first instance pro-pose that the House should consider all three motions that are before us.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: As an objection has been taken to that course, we shall have to leave out Item 6. Does the hon. Member for Islington, South and Fins-bury (Mr. Cunningham) want Item 6 dealt with separately?

Mr. George Cunningham: Yes.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, we can take Items 4 and 5 together.

Mr. George Cunningham: I think it would be wise to take the motions on Members' Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance and Members' Salaries and Pensions together.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is what I said. The hon. Gentleman has objected to the motion on Parliament being taken with the other two. So we are taking Nos. 4 and 5 together.

Mr. Michael English: But I object to that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Then we will take first the motion on Members' Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance.

Mr. Foot: I fully accept it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if hon. Members wish No. 4 to

be taken separately. However, I think that it would be for the greater convenience of the House at this time of night if we had a discussion on all three matters together—[Interruption.] It is true that my hon. Friend did not table these motions. We attempted to discuss these matters on an earlier occasion and, in view of the representations made from different parts of the House, we said that we would postpone the debate. I still submit that it would be preferable to discuss all three items together, although I know that there are arguments on the other side. I would not seek to deny my hon. Friend the opportunity of arguing the other matters separately.
I know that it is late at night, but that is not entirely the Government's responsibility. We must have this debate before the House goes into recess and I believe that we could cover the matter properly by taking all three items together.

Mr. English: I am not trying to be awkward. I want to talk about matters which I think will be in order on the motion dealing with Members' Office, Secretarial and Research Allowance and which I do not think should be mixed up under the terms of my amendment to the motion on Members' Salaries and Pensions.

Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friend and other hon. Members wish these matters to be discussed separately, I am prepared to do so. I merely suggest that it would be preferable to take all three motions together, and by so doing we should get through the business more speedily. However, if the House wishes to proceed differently I will fall in with it. But at this hour of the night it is, I think, the duty of other Members as well as of members of the Government to try to ease the difficulties of the House generally.
I beg to move,
That, in the opinion of this House, the limits on the allowance payable to any Member of this House in respect of expenses incurred for his Parliamentary duties—

(a) as general office expenses;
(b) on secretarial assistance; and
(c) on research assistance for work undertaken in the proper performance of those duties;

should be replaced by one limit on the aggregate of the expenses so incurred and that limit should be, for the year ending 31st March 1978. £3.652, and for any subsequent year £3,687.


The motion increases the reimbursement maximum for secretarial allowance by 5 per cent. This will enable hon. Members to give their secretaries a 5 per cent. increase in line with pay policy. The motion also formalises the present arrangements whereby the allowance can be made to meet any combination of expenditure on secretarial and research assistance.
Paragraph (c) has now been modified to avoid the appearance that it might be otherwise more restrictive than paragraph (b) covering secretarial assistance.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) said the other evening, our aim has been to meet the point about avoiding misunderstanding at some later date. The alteration was made thanks to his representations.
I hope that the House will approve the motion. I know that there are important questions which are of interest to the House about the whole position of the secretaries who work in the House. Those matters have been recently considered by a sub-committee of the Services Committee. The Committee's report will be out very soon, and I hope that as soon as we return after the recess we 'hall be able to proceed to carry the Committee's recommendation's into effect. In the meantime I ask the House to accept the motion.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: The House has spent a considerable time today dealing with the conduct of hon. Members. There is one issue on which I would like, briefly, to elicit some information from my right hon. Friend. It may be that other hon. Members will wish to comment on what I have to say. At the centre of the debate which has recently concluded was the question of the declaration of interests and how open matters relating to hon. Members, their constituents, outside interests and their colleagues should be.
The procedure adopted so far in relation to the payment of secretarial research allowances and the reclamation of those sums has been what I believe is technically called certification. It strikes me, and it has struck others outside this place, that the procedure in vogue is not neces-

sarily one which this House or hon. Members might approve of in relation to other bodies if they adopted the same procedure.
It may be that this is being considered by the Committee which the Leader of the House has mentioned. Even if it is not, I hope that the Lord President will consider this matter, perhaps at some later date, if there is another motion of this sort before us, or even earlier. I do not think it right that this House should not put upon its Members a procedure which we would normally expect to be adopted by outside bodies. I hope that the Lord President will refer to this when he replies to the debate.

11.27 p.m.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: It is right that we should debate this motion separately from the others because it is the one motion referring to expenses. It is a much-propagated myth outside this House that these expenses are not incurred by hon. Members. I challenge anyone to find a secretary in Central London, with the necessary qualities to deal with a Member's correspondence, at this figure, which apparently represents a 5 per cent. increase on last year. In addition, there is the expense of equipping and maintaining a reasonably modern office. An electric typewriter today costs in excess of £600. Further, there is the expense of a research assistant. This proposal is a contribution towards the cost of paying a regular secretary and no more It is time that we accepted that this burden should be removed from hon. Members, who admittedly can charge the excess to their income tax. I hope that the Leader of the House will make it clear that this is only reimbursement of absolutely essential expenses, and a very niggardly reimbursement at that.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. Michael English: I was a little upset to hear the Leader of the House talk about another Committee. We have already had a Committee to consider the whole of this question of secretarial and research allowances. It was chaired by the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and was known as "the van Straubenzee Committee". It heard evidence on the wide variety of circumstances of hon. Members. There are hon.
Members who, because of work outside, have secretaries paid for by businesses which are their own businesses or someone else's. There are hon. Members with outside incomes and hon. Members with no outside incomes. There are hon. Members who, quite legitimately, employ their wives. We know, because we see the wives on the premises working as secretaries. There are other hon. Members who claim to employ their wives and we do not see them on the premises.
All of this was in the evidence given to the Committee which suggested that, to start to clear up the rather complex situation that arises in relation to these allowances, we should allow hon. Members the option of having their secretaries paid by the Exchequer. In evidence to the Committee I suggested that we should not try suddenly to clear out the mess of various circumstances but should start by putting in the new system and letting hon. Members take it as an option and see where we went from there. Whether we agree to do it that way or not, it is surely desirable, from the point of view of the secretaries, that those of us who wish to should be able to pay them properly and provide adequate pensions. I do not want to say what I am about to say on the next motion without saying first that the staff who work for us should have proper conditions.
I know of one hon. Member who out of sympathy, I think, employs a secretary who is well into her 70s. One suspects that she is older, but ladies do not admit to their age very easily. That hon. Member frankly admits that she is not the best secretary around but he employs her because she has always worked in this House and she will never get a pension other than a Stale pension. That is a disgrace. I have no hesitation in saying that it is a disgrace.
I suspect that the Treasury has an interesting little habit when it is dislikes anything in that it waits until there is a new Leader of the House and then presses him to set up another Committee to consider the matter. Thus we go on and on considering the matter without actually doing anything.

Mr. Francis Pym: The hon. Member is on them all.

Mr. English: I can cheerfully say that I was not on this one. I gave evidence to it instead. I would not have minded being on the van Straubenzee Committee because of the excellent recommendation that it put forward.
It simply asked: "Why on earth should not a secretary of the House of Commons be as well treated as a secretary of the Civil Service? Why should not our secretaries be paid by the Exchequer at the rates fixed for secretaries in Central London who work just over the road in Whitehall? Why should not they get an inflation-proof pension like the secretaries just over the road in Whitehall?"
We can argue until the cows come home about the virtues or otherwise of inflation-proof pensions, but it does not seem fair that 750,000 people should get inflation-proof pensions but not secretaries in the House of Commons.
The simple issue is that we have a recommendation which has never been put to the House. When is that recommendation going to be nut forward? I hope that my right hon. Friend will not tell us that the Services Committee, or another Committee, will deal with this matter and will try to suggest something. When shall we actually deal with the recommendation that we have got?

11.33 p.m.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: I intervene briefly for two purposes. First, I support the hon. Member for Newham. South (Mr. Spearing) in his proposition that we ought to be as scrupulous in accounting for the sums that we claim as the Public Accounts Committee would require all those whom the Comptroller and Auditor General examines to be
I believe that these sums ought only to be paid against duly and properly receipted vouchers and that they should be subject to examination as to the propriety of the expenditure on which the sums thus avouched have been incurred for the purposes set out in the motion.
I am not suggesting, of course, that we are not all honourable Members. I am sure that no hon. Member of this House would claim a halfpenny for any purpose which was not narrowly within the terms of this motion. Not at all. But we ought to he prepared to certify that this is so and submit ourselves to the same régime


as the rest of our fellow-citizens have to accept. [Interruption.] We do not submit vouchers. We simply certify on the one signature without returning receipts of any description whatever. No evidence is required from hon. Members of this House that they have incurred the expenditure which they claim.
I am not alleging that sums are improperly claimed. But it remains a fact that we in this House claim sums in a manner other than would be accepted for anyone else to whom public money is disbursed.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: I appreciate the meaning of what the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) says, and I am sure the House does also. But, in case it is misunderstood outside, it is only right to make the point that every hon. Member claiming an expense must enter it on his tax return and justify it to the tax inspector. There is every reason to believe that these claims are checked, even though this is not done by the House.

Mr. Powell: That is not the point that I was making. The disbursements that are reimbursed under this order are not, to the best of my knowledge, checked by the Inland Revenue. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can speak from their own experience, and perhaps this is a hint to the Inland Revenue, if that is how hon. Members want it. As far as I am concerned, it is the difference between the reimbursed amounts and the sums claimed as expenses which the Inland Revenue investigates.
My second point is that raised by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). It is a complete nonsense to talk of conditions and pay of secretaries serving hon. Members. No market is more competitive and open than that for secretaries and shorthand-typists in London. There is no market so free in which a secretary, if she is dissatisfied with the attractions and conditions of one employment, can get alternative employment. The effect of that on those entering this market, or in the early stages of their careers, is, as in other professions and callings, a guarantee of the sums paid to those who are near retirement. It is absurd to suggest that hon. Members of this House can obtain secretarial assist-

ance at less than the full going rate in this highly demanding and competitive environment.
But this strays slightly beyond the terms of the motion. Let us beware of being provided with our own assistants by the State. As we accept from the State the assistance for doing our job so we shall become the servants of the State, and we shall cease to be the independent servants of our constituents and independent representatives in our own right.

Mr. English: I did not go into details of the van Straubenzee report because of the lateness of the hour. The right hon. Member will recollect that, although it recommended that secretaries should be paid by the Exchequer, it also recommended that they should be chosen by us.

Mr. Powell: Yes, indeed. But those who pay are those who choose in the end. The piper and the tune is a fundamental political and financial fact.
Fortunately, we are not confronted with this proposition at the moment. I would just warn hon. Members that when it does come before us we had better beware of accepting it.

11.39 p.m.

Mr. Iain Wrigglesworth: I do not disagree at all with the first part of the remarks of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell).
I take the strongest possible exception to the use of the word "perks" by the Press to describe the allowances we receive at present as a means of providing our basic tools which, in any other job, would be provided by the organisation for which we worked.
I hope that members of the Press Gallery will take note of my remarks. I believe that by using that term "perks" they are casting a slight on hon. Members, and implying the things that the right hon. Member for Down, South was worrying about in his early remarks. This can only be overcome by providing a system in which secretaries are on the payroll of the Fees Office. Therefore, I hope that the media will stop using the word "perks" to describe Members' secretarial allowances.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I was interested in the observations of


the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell). He raised an important matter and I found myself in great sympathy with his overall philosophy, but he did not go on to pose the question and then answer it—namely, whether the secretarial allowance payable to hon. Members is sufficient for them to employ a fully qualified and competent secretary to enable them to do their job to the standard which their constituents and this House would expect.

Mr. Powell: I am sorry if I failed to do that. I shall supplement what I said. Speaking from my experience—and I deal with possibly the largest correspondence of any Member of the House—I regard these sums as being on the excessive side for dealing with constituency duties and constituency correspondence. The hon. Gentleman asked for my opinion and I have given it.

Mr. Winterton: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has given advice to the House. In this case, as in others, he would appear to be unique. Speaking from my experience—and I know my view is shared by many of my colleagues—in view of the amount of work hon. Members undertake, and bearing mind the use of an up-to-date office to deal with research and the employment of a research assistant or part-time research assistant, I believe that the amount of money allowed to hon. Members by the Fees Office is totally inadequate to meet the cost that is necessarily involved if those hon. Members are to do their job properly.
If the country and the House of Commons are not prepared to allow Members a satisfactory sum to pay a competent secretary, a Member of Parliament cannot do the job to the standard he or she believes to be right.
I have just returned from the United States and Canada. I must tell the House that in the United States a congressman—admittedly with a constituency four times the size of the average United Kingdom constituency—is paid $57,500. In addition, he is allowed to employ up to 18 persons, which could cost the State up to $200,000 a year. Furthermore, all his office expenses, including typewriters, photo-copiers and all modern office equipment, is provided to him free. I do not say that this House should vote

Members of Parliament that sort of money, but I do say that it is absurd that the Lord President should seek to present this motion to the House.
I should like the right hon. Gentleman to go into the facts and figures and say how the figures are arrived at. I consider that the allowance is totally inadequate if an hon. Member is expected to be able to meet the cost of employing a competent secretary in this capital city of the United Kingdom. If a Member cannot employ a competent secretary, he cannot attend to his duties in this Chamber involving the scrutiny of the mass of legislation that comes before us because he has to spend too much of his time dealing with constituents' correspondence. We know that that is an important factor in the life of a Member of Parliament and what goes on in this Chamber. I hope that in replying to the debate the right hon. Gentleman will say whether he considers this to be an adequate figure for the employment of a competent secretary and also for the buying of a good typewriter and the employment of a part-time research assistant. If he can add up the figures to embrace what I have stipulated, all I can say is that he is a bit of a magician.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: I am glad that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has just returned from the United States and brought his experience back with him to enlighten us. However, I feel that two defects have been emphasised tonight, and I consider that there is an important connection between them. First, the secretarial allowance is grossly inadequate to provide secretarial services of the sort necessary to service a Member of Parliament. Second, the certification method which we use is thoroughly sloppy for the disbursement of public money.
I suggest to my right hon. Friend the Lord President that there is a curious connection between those two deficiencies. The House brought in secretarial allowances in the 1960s in a half-hearted and sloppy way, and it was for that reason, because we could not decide whether we wanted to pay secretaries properly or give Members a little more money in their pockets to pay half the


salaries, that we were content to have a thoroughly unsatisfactory method of certifying.
The urgency of the need to move over to a proper system lies on both sides of the case, because when we do move fully over to a system under which secretaries and research assistants can be properly paid, with proper accountability, we shall kill two birds with one stone. We shall at the same time not lay ourselves open to the sort of comment in the Press to which my hon. Friend the Member for Thornaby (Mr. Wrigglesworth) referred. So long as we use the certification system, it is open to the Press to use the term "perks" when talking about something which, in fact, as hon. Members have rightly said, is about half what we need to do our job properly.

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: I do not want to get involved in what one might call a fundamental debate on secretarial pay, but I must comment on what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton). One sees that new ideas and inventions in the United States are inclined to find their way across the Atlantic, but I should rue the day when that system emerged in this country, because Members of Parliament would then cease to be Members of Parliament and would turn themselves into office managers.
Second, may I say that if all hon. Members were of the calibre of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) this would be a pretty fantastic place, and I do not quite know what conclusions we should come to at the end of any given week.
The serious point which I put to the Lord President is this: what is the basis of his 5 per cent.? I fully accept that any increase in salary for a secretary is subject to pay policy. The pay of a secretary, like that of anyone else, is subject to that. But that does not apply to general office expenses or to the level of research assistance. We know that such expenses have risen by about 20 per cent., in round figures, and hon. Members are, in fact, more subject to increasing expenditure which they haw to meet out of their own pockets than is almost anybody else one can think of.

I do not, therefore, understand why the figure of 5 per cent. should be taken in relation to all the expenses covered in the motion save that for secretaries. The question of secretarial salaries and whether the general level of secretarial allowance is sufficient is a different matter, but, in so far as it exists and is relevant to the motion, I think that the House would accept the figure of 5 per cent. since that is phase 2, and no one has sought to challenge that. But that does not cover all the items in the motion. General office expenses have risen by infinitely more than that, and there is a strong feeling in the House (hat the 5 per cent. increase allowed for in the motion to meet research assistance is altogether inadequate in the circumstances.
I ask the Lord President, therefore, to justify his figure and explain why he says that hon. Members should not be entitled to claim an infinitely higher increase in the rate of their expenses, which have to cover all the various items dealt with in the motion, apart from secretarial salaries.

Mr. George Cunningham: Why did not the right hon. Gentleman put down an amendment, then?

11.50 p.m.

Mr. Foot: First, may I offer a brief word of apology to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I think that this debate has been of assistance, and if we had incorporated it with the other matters it might have been more difficult. So I acknowledge that my hon. Friend was right to press that the present question be dealt with in this fashion.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) talked about giving hints to the Inland Revenue. I am not sure that at this late hour the House should join in that kind of activity. However, if two such hawk-eyed hon. Members join in giving hints to the Inland Revenue I should look carefully to make sure that that was the right course before recommending that the House should follow it too assiduously.
For the rest, there has been some con-fusion in what has been said. I sometimes agree with the right hon. Member for


Down. South and sometimes I do not. On this occasion must disagree. I do not think that everything has been satisfactory in the way that hon. Members as a whole have dealt with secretaries—and I do not intend that to reflect on any individual hon. Member.
When I first became Lord President I received representations from secretaries and their organisation. I must say that the case that they put to me seemed extremely strong, and it was as a result of those discussions that we went ahead with a further examination of the matter. It is perfectly true—as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West has said—that the recommendations of the van Straubenzee Committee were never carried into effect. Therefore, over the past month or so we have ensured that we should look again at the recommendations to see whether they could be brought up to date and, much more important, how we could carry them into effect.
It is not, therefore, just a matter of saying that we shall set up another committee to look at the matter. In the light of all the representations that have been made to me from all quarters of the House and by the secretaries, we have agreed that something should be done to deal with the situation and that the system cannot be allowed to continue in the way that it now operates.
A month or so ago an Early-Day Motion was put down by several hon. Members, and that contributed towards enabling us to set up this sub-committee of the Services Committee which has looked at the matter carefully and intelligently. We were hoping that it would report to the House before the recess but that has not been the case. The seventh report of the Services Committee on this subject will be published on 4th August. As I have already said, I am sure that as soon as the House returns hon. Members will want to discuss the matter, and I shall certainly wish to seek to do so.
This is a matter that should be dealt with urgently because, in the main, the secretaries of the House are not properly treated. What the Services Committee has done should allow the kind of proposals that were outlined by the van Straubenzee Committee or an elaboration of them—and I cannot give any specific form—to be carried into effect.

Mr. English: I thank the Lord President for his opening remarks. My right hon. Friend has mentioned two reports. I hope that he recollects that in my remarks I carefully stuck to the first report, for which I suspect there is much more support in the House than for the second.

Mr. Foot: I ask the House to look at the report when it comes out. Extensive work has been done and the matter has been gone into carefully. The recommendations of the van Straubenzee report have been looked at and representations received from the secretaries and their organisation. I believe that the report will assist the House in dealing with this problem.
The right hon. Member for Cambridge-shire (Mr. Pym) asked whether the amount of money generally provided for secretarial assistance was sufficient. I do not claim that it is but in this motion the 5 per cent. is governed by phase 2 of the pay policy, and that is a perfectly reasonable proposition. If it is said that a considerable increase is required in the other sorts of assistance, I have to reply that this is not included in the motion. We should have to look at that matter after the recess. I am prepared to do that if the House makes representations that further additions are required.
I ask the House to pass the motion as it stands. I assure hon. Members that I regard this as an important matter for the House. It is scandalous that hon. Members' secretaries have been treated in the way that some have. The van Straubenzee proposition is the way ahead, and something on that line will be proposed to the House after the recess.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the limits on the allowance payable to any Member of this House in respect of expenses incurred for his Parliamentary duties—

(a) as general office expenses;
(b) on secretarial assistance; and
(c) on research assistance for work undertaken in the proper performance of those duties;

should be replaced by one limit on the aggregate of the expenses so incurred and that limit should be for the year ending 31st March 1978 £3,652, and for any subsequent year £3,687.

MEMBERS' SALARIES AND PENSIONS

11.56 p.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I beg to move,

That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision about salaries and pensions of Members of this House should be made with respect to service on or after 13th June 1977:—


5
(1) The salary payable to Members of each of the descriptions in the first column of Table 1 below shall be at the yearly rate specified in relation to that description in the second column of that Table.

TABLE 1



Description of Member
Yearly rate of salary




£


10
1. Member not within any other paragraph.
6,270


15
2. Member receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 as Comptroller or Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty' Household, Junior Lord of the Treasury or Assistant Government or Opposition Whip.
4,220


20
3. Officer of this House or Member other than member of the Cabinet, receiving any other salary under the Act of 1975, or receiving a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972.
3,908


25
4. Member of the Cabinet receiving salary under the Act of 1975.
3,208



(2) The ordinary salary of every Member shall be regarded for pension purposes as being at the rate of £8,208 a year (the proper rate for Members within paragraph 1 of Table 1).


30
(3) Members of each of the descriptions in the first column of Table 2 shall be credited, by way of supplement to their salaries, with amounts at the yearly rate specified in relation to that description in the second column of that Table (that is to say amounts adjusted for increases of salaries in 1976 but otherwise equal to 5 per cent. of the yearly amount by which the salary of a Member within paragraph 1 of Table 1 falls short of what a Member's ordinary salary is regarded to be for pension purposes).


35

TABLE 2



Description of Member
Yearly rate of supplement


40
1. Member within paragraph 1 or 2 of Table 1 who draws the whole of his salary.
£96·90


2. Member within paragraph 1 or 2 of Table 1 who does not draw the whole of his salary.
£96·90 plus 5 per cent. Of the amount forgone but not together exceeding £112·50.


45
3. Member within paragraph 3 or 4 of Table 1
£112·50.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): We may also discuss the following amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English):

Amendment (a), in line 1, after 'House', insert
'its Members are not entitled to a Phase II increase under the incomes policy but are entitled to the £8,000 salary recommended before Phase I began, and that therefore'.

Amendment (b), in line 10, leave out '6,270' and insert '8,000'.

Amendment (c), in line 12, leave out '4,220' and insert '5,000'.

Amendment (d), in line 14, leave out from '1975' to end of line 26.

We may also take Amendment (e) in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham), in line 28, leave out '£8,208' and insert '£8,520'.

Mr. Foot: Perhaps we may also take with this motion the Ministerial and Other Salaries Order 1977, which comes next on the Order Paper.

Mr. George Cunningham: Object.
Mr. Foot: If my hon. Friends do not wish to do that, it will take us a bit longer to get through the business, but so be it.
The motion applies a £208 increase to the parliamentary salary of all hon. Members with effect from 13th June 1977. All hon. Members of this House are now eligible for an increase of £4 a week on the basis of their pay as MPs or their combined pay as MPs and Ministers or Office holders. It is fitting that parliamentary pay should have first call on that increase, so Table 1 sets out the new levels of parliamentary salary payable to all hon. Members in the different groups.
I ought however remind the House that all hon. Members who agreed to forgo all or part of last year's £312 increase because their total earnings exceeded £8,500 should continue to forgo that increase to comply with the voluntary policy. If they were to withdraw their requests to the Fees Office, they would effectively be giving themselves a further increase in this round which would exceed the current pay policy limits.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: Pure Lewis Carroll.

Mr. Foot: We are applying to hon. Members the same rules about pay policy as apply to other people. That is a perfectly reasonable proposition. The House accepted it on the last occasion and would be wise to accept it again.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his predecessor as Leader of the House, my former parliamentary neighbour Lord Glenamara, confirmed to me in the House that all other groups that made a settlement before stage 1 of the pay policy at the same time as we made our settlement were entitled to have it paid? We were as entitled to have our settlement paid as was any other group in the community. Our salaries should have gone up to £8,000 a year. We voluntarily agreed that they should not, but we were entitled to that in-

crease under the pay policy and the then Mr. Short confirmed that to me in the House.

Mr. Foot: That is a different question. Before the £6 policy, it would have been possible for the House to increase hon. Members' salaries to £8,000 a year as recommended by the Boyle Committee. However, the House considered when the £6 policy was introduced that it would not be right to increase salaries to £8,000. It was also agreed in July that increases paid to hon. Members should include the cut-off under pay policy. I am saying that the application of the £6 policy was in accordance with the pay policy that applied to other members of the community. In my opinion it is absurd for hon. Members to laugh at that proposition. It is much more sensible to proceed on the basis that the £6 policy that applied to others throughout the community should be applied in the House with the same conditions, that involving what some consider to be the laughable proposition of some hon. Members having to forgo it like other members of the community.

Mr. R. A. McCrindle: Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify the situation of an hon. Member who in the year 1976–77 anticipated earnings in excess of £8,500 and forwent the £312 but estimates that in 1977–78 his earnings will not reach £8,500? If he applies to the Fees Office to cancel his earlier instructions, will that be accepted?

Mr. Foot: If it applied to the previous 12 months, it has to apply now. That situation was accepted by the House on the previous occasion. The same rules apply to hon. Members in this respect as apply to others. If there are doubts about some particular dates, I have no doubt that the Fees Office will help hon. Members in dealing with the matter, as with other matters. Others have had the same difficulty in respect of the £6 policy. It would be foolish for the House to say in some superior manner that the policy should not be applied to us and that we should not adopt the same system.

Mr. Mike Thomas: It more than applied to us.

Mr. Foot: It is true that we could have increased the salary under the Boyle recommendations to £8,000. However, at


that time it was the view of the Government, and the view of the House, that it would be wrong to do so. It was agreed by the House that it would be right to make the £6 increase of a year ago subject to the same principles as applied to other members of the community. It is on that basis that we are asking the House to proceed again.
Although hon. Members are anxious and ready to comply with the—

Mr. Terence Higgins: rose—

Mr. Foot: No. It is better that I proceed and deal with the matter. I have already given way several times. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to speak, he will be able to catch the eye of the Chair later.
Although hon. Members are anxious and ready to comply with the pay policy that has applied so widely, I recognise that a great many hon. Members take a strict view—for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas), like, I imagine, the overwhelming majority of hon. Members—about the right level of remuneration for service in the House. I agree that hon. Members should be paid on a fair and proper basis, and the Government fully intend that the House should have the opportunity to discuss the general issue at the appropriate juncture. I believe that hon. Members will agree that that time has not yet arrived.

Mr. Higgins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is not usual for him to read his speeches. If the House had decided to increase hon. Members' salaries to £8,000 as recommended by Lord Boyle, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that to have gone ahead with the Boyle proposition at that time would not have been in conflict with the Government's pay policy?

Mr. Foot: I have already said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East that I confirm that that is so. It would have been in conformity with the pay policy because the date was prior to the introduction of the £6 policy. It would have been possible for the House, without any defiance of the strict letter of the pay

policy, to go ahead and introduce the £8,000 recommendation. On the other hand, I believe that the House of Commons a year ago quite rightly reached the conclusion that if the House had done so it would properly have been regarded by the great mass of people throughout the country as a general outrage against the policy, if not defiance of it. I believe that it would have been impossible for the House to carry it through sensibly. Indeed, a year ago the House accepted that view. Therefore, I do not believe that that issue can be reopened now.
Much as I sympathise with the amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), that Members should be paid the £8,000 salary recommended before phase 1 began. I cannot commend it to the House. At that time-22nd July 1975—£8,000 could have been paid, but the House decided—this was not merely the Government's recommendation—that, at a time when the Government had just announced their anti-inflation measures, it ought not to implement a recommendation that, although Members had not had an increase for three or more years, they should receive a 78 per cent. increase in salary. I do not believe that any hon. Member who considers the situation imagines that it would have been possible for the House to have accepted that recommendation when we were passing through legislation that envisaged a pay policy limit of £6. I say the same now in that respect. We should not vote ourselves an increase of £2,000 a year at a time when those we represent are restricted to £208 at most.
It is, however, two years since £8,000 was announced as the proper rate for the job, and the Review Body then recommended that the rate should be reviewed every two years by an independent body. Although the Government have not been able to take any action on that recommendation or in any way to settle finally the basis for the future determination of Members' pay, we have considered it to be appropriate this year, in recognition of the Review Body's recommendation that the rate should be reviewed every two years, to apply the £208 increase to the proper and, therefore, pensionable rate of £8,000 as well as to the actual rates in payment.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: My right hon. Friend has studiously been ignoring the resolution of the House on linkage. He has gone back to the Review Body that the House sought to get away from to avoid this spectacle every two years of arguing about our salary. It was to be fixed externally. My right hon. Friend is now going back upon that undertaking and resolution passed by the House.

Mr. Foot: I am not going back on that resolution. If my hon. Friend is making the charge of going back on that resolution, he will have to make it against the House and the action that it took a year ago. The House then accepted the proposition that hon. Members should have the £6 increase in common with others throughout the country.
I believe that the proposal for the £208, which is a similar proposition, is an acceptance by the House of the pay policy limit for this year. The £208 increase for this year is on the same basis of pay policy as the £312 last year, with the sole distinction of what I said about the pensionable increase.
If this year we had embarked upon the linkage policy embraced in the resolution, to which my hon. Friend referred, and applied it to pay policy this year, then indeed we would hive given ourselves an increase considerably beyond the £208 limit. In other words, Members of Parliament would have voted themselves an increase considerably above the pay limit that applied to the rest of the population.

Mr. McNamara: I have a feeling that my right hon. Friend has somehow missed the point. The point that I was making was not in relation to acceptance or otherwise of the pay policy last year or this year—I go along with that—but the question of again getting the Review Body to look at our salaries. The point about the resolution of the House was that in the next Parliament we would be in position to have absolute linkage without any of this nonsense. My right hon. Friend has come along with the idea of another Review Body, but the majority of hon. Members were thinking in terms of 10 per cent. the next time round and then having linkage in the next Parliament. They would be quite happy with that, but

my right hon. Friend seems to have gone back on it.

Mr. Foot: There must be some misunderstanding. I apologise if it is my fault. I have not referred to a fresh type of review body that would determine the matter. I accepted the resolution passed by the House on linkage, as did my predecessor. But no time limit was imposed for when it should take place. I am saying not necessarily that it should be in the next Parliament but that it should be at some suitable time. That is the correct way of dealing with the situation. All I am talking about is the addition of £208. That is the sum which applies to other people.
Because of that biennial recommendation, we did not increase the £8,000 rate by £312 last year. We saw that increase simply as a further step towards £8,000. It would not, in any event, have been consistent with pay policy last year to have increased the pensionable pay of those whose total earnings exceeded £8,500. It would be wrong to go back on those decisions. Therefore, I cannot commend to the House the amendment put down by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) that the £312 should now also be added to the £8,000 rate. I could not support an increase of £520 in pensionable pay at this present time when everyone else is subject to the £208 limit. Such anomalies arising from phase 1 cannot be put right under phase 2.
Table 2 simply prescribes the supplements that are payable to cover the pension contribution on the difference between actual and pensionable pay for the various new rates of parliamentary salary in the first table. Now that £208 is being added both to the actual and to the pensionable rates, the existing supplements remain unchanged.
I remind the House that the Top Salaries Review Body's Report No. 8 recommended a number of improvements, including increased credit for service prior to October 1964, provision for added years, ill-health benefits and an early retirement option, as well as improved benefits for widows and dependants. Now that the constraints of incomes policy will soon no longer apply to improvements in occupational pension schemes, the Government will be able to review the


pension arrangements for Members on the basis of the Review Body's report. I hope that we shall return to that very soon when we come back after the recess.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the next speaker I should like the co-operation of hon. Members. This is a short debate, lasting only one and a half hours. I hope that hon. Members appreciate that. During that time we have two groups of amendments and a single amendment that have to be moved. They have been selected by Mr. Speaker. I shall call one hon. Member from the Opposition side and then the mover of the first amendment selected.

12.14 a.m.

Mr. Edward du Cann: I shall certainly obey your request to speak as briefly as possible, Mr. Speaker.
I welcome and support the proposals of the Leader of the House with one or two qualifications to which I shall come promptly. I also welcome what he said in the closing passages about the possibility of implementing the Boyle Report. It is long overdue, and it is a disgrace that it has not been implemented before.
As the right hon. Gentleman said, perhaps this is a difficult time and the wrong time for more to be done than he proposes No one would wish to add to the difficulties. It would be wrong for us to attempt to embarrass the Government, at this time anyway. Having said that, it is those words "This is the wrong time" or "It is a difficult time" to which I strongly object. It always is the wrong time and a difficult time
I have the good fortune, as is well known, to earn a substantial living outside this House. It seems to me that that happy fact—and I declare my interest—imposes upon me a duty to say certain things plainly to the Leader of the House.
In my judgment as a business man, for what it is worth, we pay ourselves in this House disgracefully too little money. There is no question about it. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) when he talks about salaries on the American scale, but the tradition in England for too many years has been that the way we pay our public servants and look at our own interests is modest to the point of absurdity.
I guarantee that there is not another right hon. and hon. Member present who does not, too, know of circumstances which are unhappy. There are individual Members who are finding great difficulty in living on the salary we pay ourselves. There are some cases of real hardship, and many cases of difficulty. This is an absurdity, and it is time we put an end to the matter. Year after year, decade after decade, we fail to face up to this problem, and to face up to it adequately.
It seems to a number of my hon. Friends and me, and to many hon. Members opposite, that we should find some solution to the matter which will put an end once and for all to what an hon. Gentleman in an intervention called the "spectacle we habitually make" in this connection when we debate this matter with great embarrassment to ourselves.
Some time ago we established Boyle to look into these matters for us. I have never understood why we did not accept his recommendations. We should resolve that we should set a date when we shall accept Boyle and establish a system continuously to update Boyle.
Let us put an end to the perennial debates which are an embarrassment to every hon. Member and to the country, and which in the end only mean either that we dissuade able people from coming in or that we do the job less well than we should.

12.18 a.m.

Mr. Michael English: What a sad day when we have to discuss whether we pay ourselves £6,000 or £6,270!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will move his amendment.

Mr. English: I am about to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was just pointing out that there may be a connection between what we were discussing earlier and this.
I beg to move, in line 1, after 'House', insert:
'its Members are not entitled to a phase II increase under the incomes policy but are entitled to the £8,000 salary recommended before Phase I began, and that therefore'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member may discuss at the same time his Amendment (b), in line 10, leave out "6,270" and insert "8,000".

Mr. English: The reason why I move my amendment is simple. The Leader of the House has admitted to us that the Boyle recommendations on appropriate pay for us came before phase 1 began. They should have been implemented then.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) was not the Leader of the House then but he was Secretary of State for Employment, and I am sure that he knows much more than any of us here about the construction of the incomes policy.
We are informed that it was unlikely that trade union secretaries would have advocated an incomes policy if, just before, we gave ourselves this apparently large increase, although it was in line with other earnings increases of the 1970s. We were entitled to that, but we were not entitled to a phase 1 increase of £6 or a phase 2 increase. We were entitled to £8,000 but should not get £6 or 5 per cent. We should not get either, because what we were entitled to after £8,000 was a review this year to update that £8,000 if that was appropriate according to the Boyle Committee. We were entitled only to £8,000. We were never entitled to £6 a week, and we are not entitled to £208 now, but we are still entitled to the £8,000.
My right hon. Friend the Lord President says "Yes, but we forwent this income for political reasons in order to get in an incomes policy". All right. What has happened since? We know perfectly well that people such as Jack Jones carried out their part of the bargain and advocated to their members that there should be phase 1 and phase 2. Now the situation is slightly different. I do not recollect that there is a specific figure for the country as a whole in phase 3. There may be a cash limit in Government. I do not know. We shall see that when we get the next set of cash limits. But there is no figure here and now for the country as a whole.
We forwent our £8,000. We took £6 a week, to which we were not entitled, instead of the increase to £8,000, to which we were entitled. Now we should go back to giving ourselves the amount to which we are entitled.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: As I understand it, under

stage 3 the House is entitled to seek an orderly return to free collective bargaining.

Mr. English: Unfortunately, our pay has never been decided by free collective bargaining. It has always been recommended by a committee such as the Boyle Committee, which recommendation has then usually been changed at the whim of the party in power.
This is not what we might be saying we ought to have. This is not the £12,000 that we suggested we might have in the next Parliament if we were linked to the Assistant Secretary scale. This is a very simple thing. It is what an outside body suggested we ought to have, and that is our proper pay. I think that we are entitled, like others, to the rate for the job. I suggest that the higher we get Members' pay the less need there will be to take any outside job and the more Members will be able to pick and choose and look at jobs outside that are offered to them. It would be a very good thing if that were so.

12.23 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I shall not support the amendment. I shall reluctantly support the motion moved by the Leader of the House. I do it with considerable reluctance, because after studying the motion any Member, irrespective of his views about what our level of remuneration should be, must come to the inevitable conclusion that our pay is in a mess. It is exceedingly difficult to thread one's way through the motion, but, as the Leader of the House said, it enshrines the cumulative effect of not making the right decision on "Boyle Seven" 18 months ago, and then of applying to that wrong decision the effects of an incomes policy, phases 1 and 2. The net result is complete confusion.
It has also introduced the entirely unacceptable principle of two-tier pay for Members. Irrespective of what we may individually earn in other capacities, I do not believe that there should be any distinction between us as Members of Parliament fulfilling the duties of Members of Parliament. But there is that difference now. This is a wrong anomaly.
Indeed, there was a nice little vignette earlier today when in the debate concerning my right hon. Friend the Member for


Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. Roberts) they were allowed back into the Chamber. A Labour Member objected to that and Mr. Speaker rightly said that if the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet and the hon. Member for Norman-ton wanted to intervene they should be allowed to do so because there is no distinction between hon. Members at all. I think that the phrase that he used was that they were not second-class citizens. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Smith) should not make such trivial and superfluous points. I know that he is an expert in doing that, but he should keep them for another debate.
The point is that this two-tier structure is unacceptable. The illogicality of the two-tier system is enshrined in an amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). to which the Leader of the House will object, because those hon. Members who accepted the £312 last year—[Interruption.] I was not one of them, so I can speak with that degree of detachment which, post-Poulson, we must apply to statements to the House; so I speak on this amendment in a state of perfect neutrality—or perhaps neutered perfection. I did not get that increase, but the pension of those who did is based not upon that element of £312 extra but upon £8,000. If there is any logic in this distinction, those who draw that extra £312 should have their pensions based upon £8,312, but that is not the case. I point that out as an illogicality.
These debates are exceedingly embarrassing for us, whenever they occur. I hear one of my hon. Friends asking "Why?" It is because we are the one group in this country who have the complete right to determine by our own votes our own pay and allowances. There is no other group in the country that can specifically do that. Therefore, it must be embarrassing for us to do that. Indeed, previous Governments, of both political complexions, have recognised that. That was the reason for asking Lord Boyle to review our pay and allowances.
Lord Boyle reported way back in 1971. The only Leader of the House to accept Boyle in total was my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border

(Mr. Whitelaw), who said that this whole establishment of allowances and rates of pay was distasteful and he had asked Lord Boyle to do this distasteful work for us. That was the method that was decided upon. [Interruption.] Whether or not he minds is of no relevance. The House has collectively decided to ask Lord Boyle to do it.
If one asks a body of that sort to examine our rates of pay and allowances, it is incumbent upon the House to accept its recommendations.

Mr. J. Enoch Powell: No.

Mr. Baker: The right hon. Gentleman says "No", and I therefore put this proposition to him and to the House. We have asked Lord Boyle to report in the past. The present Government have chosen some of the recommendations, and the Leader of the House has chosen a few more concerning pensions from Report No. 8. This matter must be decided essentially by the House, but before the House can decide it the trigger has to be pulled by the Leader of the House, because he has to table amendments and motions.
One way out of the difficulty is to go along with the proposals of the Leader of the House during phase 2, but when phase 2 comes to an end—which will be in June next year—we should ask Lord Boyle and his colleagues whether they would be prepared to examine our conditions further and to report by the summer of next year. Whatever proposals come forward, they should be put on the Order Paper and brought forward for debate. It will be for the House to decide which it accepts and which it does not accept.
That has not happened in the past, because the Leader of the House has said "We agree with some things, but not with others". The decision must ultimately be made by the House. That is why we would be wise to accept the motion, but I hope that there will be an undertaking from the Leader of the House that he will ask Lord Boyle to review our pay and allowances and to report by the summer of next year, with a clear indication—and this is the key thing for hon. Members—that those proposals will be tabled and the House will be able to decide whether to accept them. We have


tried over-zealously to do better than anyone else in the country as regards our pay and allowances. The net result is that we have done worse virtually than everyone else in the country. That is unsatisfactory, and I do not believe that it should be allowed to continue.

12.30 a.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: This is the third annual debate on this subject. I have found all three of them very undignified and deeply embarrassing. What I find most embarrassing about them is not that we are talking about the amount of public money that we shall allocate to ourselves. I find nothing embarrassing about that at all. It is one of the features about any sovereign Parliament that it has this important decision to take, as it has so many other important decisions to take. There is no escape from it by appointing independent committees.
What I find embarrassing is the tendency of so many hon. Members to discuss this issue with their eyes closed and to think that it is the responsibility of the Treasury Bench. This matter has nothing to do with the Treasury Bench. The Lord President has one vote on this matter, I have one vote on this matter, and every hon. Member has a vote on this matter. I regard the Lord President as a semi-suspended Member of the House on this matter who should keep his hands right out of it. We should ensure that the Lord President's hands in future, whoever the Lord President is, are right out of it. No Minister should have the initiative in this matter. I agree entirely with the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) that the House must not only exercise the power in this respect—we do that—but also take the initiative away from the Government.
The amendment in my name seeks to provide that the notional pensionable salary should be increased from its present figure of £8,000 not only by the £208 which we are giving ourselves this year but also by the £312 which we gave ourselves last year. The Lord President, when he replied to a Parliamentary Question the other week and again when he made his speech today, gave some explanation of why he is suggesting that we should add only the £208. He said this:

However, the Top Salaries Review Body recommended in 1975 that Members' pay should be reviewed every two years, and so the Government now propose that this year's increase of £208 should be added to the proper rate of £8,000, which is the rate for pension purposes."—[Official Report, 29th June 1977; Vol. 934, c. 235.]
My immediate reaction on reading that, which of course I did for the first time in the newspapers, was to say that it was totally illogical. If we are reviewing the pensionable salary every two years, one should add every two years not only what one has added in the second year but what one has added in the intervening year. Otherwise, as any child will see, the pensionable salary will be actually lower than the salary actually payable.
When I put that simple point to the Lord President his first reaction was to say that there was some objection to doing that in terms of pay policy. I disputed that argument with the Lord President, and he went to the oracle, the Department of Employment, and obtained a ruling. The ruling was that he was wrong and that there would not have been anything wrong in phase 1 in our adding the £312 not only to our payable salary but also to our pensionable salary. The Lord President also obtained a ruling that, it not having been done in phase 1, there would have been nothing contrary to phase 2, which is what we are engaged upon now, in adding the £312 as well as the £208.
That was the ruling from the oracle. So the Lord President had to back down. There then ensued some consultations and Ministers went into huddles about it, I suppose. There emerged from the same oracle another mixed-up thought, which was this. I hope that the Lord President does not mind me reading from part of his letter. He says:
the decisive argument"—
against my modest proposal—
has been put to me on behalf of the Department of Employment.
By the Secretary of State, I gather.
What they say is that at a time when the Government are exhorting everyone concerned in pay settlements not to look back to adjusting the anomalies created by the earlier phases of the pay policy when negotiating for increases during the coming 12 months, it is wrong for MPs to seek an adjustment to correct what was an undoubted anomaly in phase 1, at the first available opportunity.


The Lord President and/or the Secretary of State for Employment have simply misled themselves, or one has misled the other.
First of all, we are not talking about the coming 12 months. We, taking this decision now, are engaged in phase 2, not phase 3. We are not free from the limitations of phase 2. We are not, therefore,
at the first available opportunity
—when we are free of phases 1 and 2—correcting anything about phases 1 and 2. What we are doing is giving ourselves something which is either the maximum permitted by phase 2 or something less than that.
I entirely agree with the Government's exhortation to people not to use the freedom of phase 3 to increase benefits which they were denied because of phases 1 and 2. But our self-denial was not, as the Lord President calls it in his letter:
an undoubted anomaly in phase 1".
It was not required by phase 1. The Lord President's first answer was nonsense and his second answer is also nonsense.
This is not a mighty matter and I do not think it worth a great kerfuffle. If the House wishes, I will certainly take it to a vote. I raise it now, not so much in its own right, because it is a question of adding £300 to the pensionable salary entirely legally and entirely in accordance with phases 1 and 2. We have not yet got as far as phase 3. I raise it now because the whole story is an illustration of fuddled thinking by those responsible. If the Lord President had had consultations with me and some others rather than private consultations with civil servants before drafting this proposal it could have been got right in the first place. The truth is that, it not having been got right in the first place, there are difficulties about coming forward with an amendment in the second place, difficulties which would not have been there if we had got it right in the first place.
If the House is inclined to support me I shall take the amendment to a vote but I do not pretend that it is a mighty matter. The amount of money involved is extremely small.

12.34 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The House has been badly

handled by the Lord President over the years in relation to its salary and the various stages of incomes policy. Before ever there was one we were denied the £2,000 increase which was otherwise given to us under the Boyle Report. During stage 1 we received an extra £312 in a period when inflation was falling slightly, to be followed in stage 2 by £208 in a period when the rate of inflation has increased in every single month. Now, a few days before the end of stage 2, we are presumably to be subject to the 12-month rule. The Lord President has cleverly stretched two years' incomes policy into three years. He has succeeded in getting hon. Members to take this treatment. I must make it clear that I accepted last year's increase, as I shall accept this year's increase, and I shall, after payment of tax, give the excess to a charity. This is despite the fact that my income is over £8,500 a year. It is mainly as a demonstration against incomes policy. I would add that the charity which I have particularly selected is the National Association for Freedom.
But if the House can be so severely misled over incomes policy one dreads to think what other citizens have suffered at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I find it obnoxious that he should pray in aid the support of incomes policy for this motion tonight. I never supported it under this Government or the last one or the one before that. Why should the right hon. Gentleman claim to speak for the whole House when he advances these absurd propositions?
However, hon. Members should have hope, because we have been assured that we are now making an orderly return to free collective bargaining. Therefore, let us proceed to examine what that will mean for the future. It will mean the horrible thing that the House will have to decide its own salaries for itself.
What I find awful about this debate is the number of hon. Members who have used the word "embarrassing". They are all acutely embarrassed at having to fix their own salaries. They all want someone else to do it for them. One hon. Member wants Lord Boyle to do it, but most want the Lord President to do it. [Hon. Members: "No."] The Lord President has been responsible for all the


distress which hon. Members have suffered, so let us not have him do anything about it at all. What has it got to do with him? Is not the House in command of its own raising of taxation and its own payment of salaries to itself?
However, we shall never solve this problem if we continue to say: "Oh, the Lord President has put up parliamentary pay by X hundred pounds a year. I do not think he should. I am not sure that I am going to take it.", and then we do take it. That is what is wrong. We should accept the responsibility for our own level of salaries and should be prepared to go to our constituents, and to the Press and radio, justifying it. If we are prepared to justify it we should be prepared to vote for it in this House.
I urge hon. Members to vote for the amendment of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I shall vote for it, if he presses it tonight, if only to demonstrate that it should not be the Lord President who decides these matters. The House itself should take upon itself the responsibility for settling its own pay. How else can we expect other people to respect ourselves as responsible people if we cannot even be responsible about our own salaries?

12.44 a.m.

Mr. Mike Thomas: I would go a long way with the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) in the theme of his argument if there was not one simple fact that obstructs us from taking the course that he suggests. That is the Lord President and the Government's domination of the Order Paper.
If the hon. Gentleman or I could guarantee to get on to the Order Paper a generally agreed motion which evolved through Back Bench channels rather than the usual channels, and have it discussed in a proper fashion, then we could dispense with the Lord President. I suspect that the Lord President would be delighted to be dispensed with in those circumstances.
The fact is that we cannot do that under the present arrangements. Until we can devise some relevant arrangements at the beginning of every parliamentary Session to ensure that that facility is

available to us we are irrevocably stuck in this mess.
The point I want to make is that there is a strong body of opinion in this House—the Lord President should not leave the Chamber without hearing it—which believes that his "sometime-never" approach is wholly unsatisfactory and that it will lead us further and further into difficulty and into disrepute.
I agree absolutely with the case for the mathematical calculations on the Order Paper. It seems unanswerable under stage 2 of the pay policy. But that does not impinge on the arrangements for the future. The Lord President would not commit himself on this. His whole attitude was "maybe in this Parliament, or the next, or perhaps the one after that". He could not give any assurances. I detected no real determination on his part—and we are unwillingly placed in his unwilling hands on this matter—to get it all sorted out. This is just not good enough. It is widely unacceptable to the people he, as Leader of the House, is supposed to represent, lead and deal with, in the genuine and literal sense.
I suggest that there are two things that the Lord President should consider before we get into real difficulties in 12 months' time. He must have a strategy for re-entry. It may be an orderly return to free collective bargaining, to use the terminology of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury. The Lord President must decide whether he will send this matter back to the Review Body, where it is now due again, as two years have passed.
The idea that hon. Members will find the sum agreed two years ago acceptable in another year's time is romantic nonsense. It will be quite unacceptable, and by that time the gap will have increased to a more embarrassing level.
The Lord President will have to decide whether this matter will be sent back to the Review Body or whether he will attempt to introduce the process of linking, which has been approved by the House. Whichever of these things he does, we must face up to the fact that it may be embarrassing. I am not ashamed to go to the people in my constituency—whether they be miners, shipbuilders or employees of C. A. Parsons, all of whom negotiate hard for what they get—and


explain why I think that I am entitled to what I get for my living.

Mr. Max Madden: When my hon. Friend goes to his constituents does he share my experience? My constituents are at a loss to understand how it is that Members of Parliament can have one, two or even three other jobs, apart from their membership of this House. In this strategy for re-entry, does my hon. Friend envisage paying hon. Members realistic and competitive salaries but demanding the legal requirement that they do not have second jobs?

Mr. Thomas: I do not want to be drawn into that. My constituents ask me why the hell I put up with the existing situation. They say that they would never put up with it.
My second suggestion to the Lord President is that if he does not think it proper to go back to the Review Body he must consider how to implement the linkage with the Civil Service grade of Assistant Secretary. That grade will be receiving £9,000, £10,000 or even £11,000 a year in 12 months' time. When does he intend to fix this matter? The Lord President must believe me: this matter must be fixed and properly organised in 12 months' time or we shall have most dreadful difficulties in this House, and a most bitter wave of resentment among Back Bench Members, who are under the sort of pressure that led us into the matters that we discussed earlier today. It is a pressure that will lead to events that will bring the House into very severe question.

12.50 a.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I wish to declare an interest. I have spent over 30 years in personnel management, and I have never in the whole of my life come across an organisation that has made as much of a mess of its affairs and personnel policies as has the House of Commons.
I appreciate the fact that Members of Parliament are unique and are not salaried employees, but since we pay ourselves something, surely we can make a better job of our remuneration. Perhaps the Lord President should go on a personnel course. If he wishes to do so, I can suggest several—or I can give him some private tuition.
Ministers' salaries—a subject we shall be discussing a little later—have a bearing on Members' salaries. I believe the Prime Minister should be paid at least £50,000 a year and Secretaries of State £30,000 a year. Their present salaries, compared with those paid in the Civil Service, industry and commerce, and the EEC in particular, are quite ridiculous.
On the subject of Members' salaries, who has ever heard of any organisation in England that pays two salaries for the same job? The request last year to forgo the £6 was ill-conceived, but I understand that the new £4 increase is statutory and has to be accepted. I cannot believe that this anomaly should be allowed to go on. As the years go by, it will cause increasing complications.
Let me put one point to the right hon. Gentleman which I hope he will clarify in his reply. Those who now wish to claim the £6 that was forgone last year surely have a right to do so. If that is not the case, by what right is it being withheld by the Fees Office? I believe Lord Boyle's figure was £8,000, but that has disappeared just like the grin on the face of the Cheshire cat. If a figure of £8,000 was right then, surely the figure now should be at least £10,000.
The public believe that we are paid at least £8,000, and two national newspapers recently stated that that was our salary. But whatever we pay ourselves is normally disliked by a normally kind and tolerant British public. I believe that there is a good case for either paying us nothing or, say, £12,000. I can see no case for paying us that sort of salary that is paid, for instance, to a young accountant in the City.
There is an extraordinary anomaly about our notional salary for pension purposes. No other organisation—and, I believe, no other country—has this incredible arrangement. As the years go by the situation will become increasingly anomalous.
We all know that Members' pensions are scandalously low, and I believe that the 40 years' possible pensionable service should be reduced to 30 years. If we conduct our own affairs with such casualness and inefficiency, who can blame outsiders for thinking that we are not fit or entitled to deal with their affairs?

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Eric Ogden: Having heard the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes), I now know that I was wrong to vote against televising the proceedings of the House. I say that as a compliment to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman said that Lord Boyle's £8,000 salary had disappeared like the grin on the face of the Cheshire cat—but that salary has never appeared because we have never been awarded it.
The hon. Gentleman also said that there are now two salaries for Members of Parliament—those who are on more than £8,000 a year because of outside interests and those who are on less than that figure. In fact, there are three salaries. There is that other group of right hon. and hon. Members who are in the Cabinet, in the various Departments of State or Officers of Her Majesty's Household. It is ridiculous to try to pretend that because somebody becomes a member of the Government, Leader of the Opposition, or whatever it may be, that person is doing less for his constituents than he was doing before. I should be very pleased if we could work out a way of getting out of that anomaly.
I have a suspicion that my right hon. Friend the Lord President, who is in for some criticism tonight—though that is not unusual, and he can take it well—does not really understand what some of us are saying with reference to the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). Let me spell it out again quite simply.
Someone who was earning £8,000 outside the House in 1975 would have had his pension based on that salary of £8,000 per annum. In 1976, that someone outside the House would have been entitled to the phase 1 increase and his salary would have been £8,312. His pension also would have been based on £8,312. By 1976, under phase 2, his salary would have been £8,520, and his pension would have been based on. that £8,520.
We inside the House, by our own decision, in 1975 took a salary of £5,750, though we based our pension on £8,000. In 1976 we accepted the actual cash under stage 1 and we brought our salary to £6,062. We omitted then to add that

£312 to our pension base. In 1977 our salary under phase 2 is £6,270, and our pension is to be based on £8,208.
There is a missing link. We are not by the amendment asking for anything more than other people have now or have had over the past two years. Even if we accept the amendment, we shall certainly not be asking for more. In fact, we are 12 months behind what other people have already got. We are not asking for more than anyone else has. We are 12 months late in getting what has in terms been awarded to us under phases 1 and 2 of the pay policy but has not been added to the pension element.
That is the simple logic of the matter. It seems that my right hon. Friend's experience at the Department of Employment must have been pretty traumatic No doubt, it was. But, equally, there are times when I think that I should have got a better deal out of the old coal owners than I am likely to get out of my right hon. Friend.

12.57 a.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I do not wish to repeat the observations made earlier by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). I accept the argument put by hon. Members on the Government Back Benches that Members of Parliament would be entitled under the pay policies to a salary of £8,000 or more. But there is one point which has not so far been made in the debate, and I refer here to the calibre of those who put themselves forward as candidates, those who are recruited to come to this place in the sense that they put themselves forward for selection and adoption. This is a matter which the House should take seriously on behalf of the country.
One can see in virtually any daily news. paper, in trade union magazines and so on a grand selection of jobs for which people are paid substantially more than Members of Parliament are paid at the moment. I could give examples, and I have a selection of them in my pocket, although I shall not give them as time is getting on. But here is just one. Is it right that the new publicity officer for the National Union of Teachers should have to take a £2,000 per annum drop in salary if he comes to represent a constituency in the House? One could go


on with the same story in respect of various skilled manual jobs, white-collar jobs and the rest, showing that we are way out of line.
But however much we might ask for ourselves—I would argue that I could persuade my constituents that I was worth substantially more than I am getting at the moment—the crucial element is the calibre of people whom we try to attract to come to this place to work along with us or to do our jobs in replacement for us. I accept that there are the vicar types, and many who are likely to come and many who are not. If they come, they can give part of their salary to War on Want, the National Association for Freedom or whatever charity they may choose.
I am sorry that the Lord President has had to stay up late on so many nights, because I am worried about his health, but I should have no hesitation in voting for higher salaries on the amendments, and I hope that other hon. Members will as well, because talk about something happening at some juncture when that juncture is not specified is an example of how the House of Commons goes about things and gets the country, as well as its own salaries, into a mess. If Members of Parliament do not have the guts or cannot induce themselves to force the Lord President—we may fail again tonight—into treating them properly, what confidence can the country have in our competence to deal with the rest of the nation's affairs properly when, perhaps, unpleasant decisions have to be taken or there is a bad Press for a week and so on? That, therefore, is another reason for putting our salaries on a reasonable level.
The right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) talked about secretaries, and what he said about that can also be applied to the pay of hon. Members. When I was employing people I did not wait until I felt that they were about to leave before giving them better terms of employment. I tried to do what I believed to be right. The right hon. Gentleman may say that it is not my money in this case, but in those cases when I was a hired manager for various companies the same thing applied. One tried to consider what was right and to do that. I hope that in the House we shall do the same thing about our pay

and conditions and, in time, improve the conditions that we must put up with.

Mr. English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would it be in order for me to move the closure on my amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): No. Not at this moment.

Mr. Powell: I should like to reply to the inquiry that was implicit in the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley). The supply of potential hon. Members always grossly exceeds the demand and that, at any rate, is a basic reason for assuming that present rates of pay are at least adequate.

1.1 a.m.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I shall be brief because there is only one point that I want to raise. Hon. Members are expected to take on greater responsibilities for a salary that has a reducing purchasing power. I do not know how they will do that, and I hope that some of the assurances that the Leader of the House has given to us tonight will be implemented, that they will be discussed and brought into effect by a resolution of the House at an early date.
I was one of those foolish hon. Members who last year did the noble thing and waived the £312 salary increase. In the light of events I wish that I had not. I was under the impression, at that time, that if hon. Members' circumstances changed and his outside income reduced so that his overall salary did not total more than £8,500 it would be in order for him to approach the Fees Office, rescind that instruction and claim the increase. However, I have been in touch with the Fees Office, the staff of which have been extremely helpful to me. I understand that it is an instruction of the House—and I believe that it appeared in an Answer that the Lord President gave—that once the amount has been waived there is no way in which an hon. Member can claim the amount.

Mr. Dudley Smith: That is an important point. Is my hon. Friend aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) took the last increase


and gave it to charity. That was well done, and I should like to do the same now, to reclaim that amount and to give it to a charity, but I am prohibited from even doing that. should like to know what authority the Lord President has for stopping that.

Mr. Winterton: I fully support that view. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Mr. Smith) has obviously approached the Fees Office and received the same reply as I received. I hope that when the Lord President replies to the debate he will give the House an explanation of why when the income of an hon. Member—whose income has nothing to do with the House—is reduced so that his total income is less than £8,500 a year, that hon. Member cannot claim the same parliamentary salary as any other hon. Member whose income has not been over £8,500. Hon. Members who have taken on outside interests that have lapsed, whose jobs have disappeared or who have been paid for a consultancy on a temporary basis and whose salaries have reduced should be in a position to claim the full parliamentary salary in accordance with stages 1 and 2 of the prices and policy.
The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) has been questioning some of my remarks and has indicated that he does not believe that there is a rule of the House that prevents the Fees Office paying our full salaries. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join me in approaching the. Leader of the House for clarification of the matter.

Mr. Mike Thomas: My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) was indicating that there is a difference between the view of the Government expressed in a Written Answer and a ruling of the House.
Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the point of the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell)? Will he ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he was suggesting that parliamentary salaries should be reduced to the point where only 635 people in the whole country are prepared to come here?

Mr. Winterton: As was shown earlier, the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell) and I differ not only on remuneration for hon. Members but in

respect of allowances for the employment of secretaries. We should pay a salary that will encourage the top people from trade unions, business and education to come here and represent the people of this country.
I hope that the Leader of the House will clarify the vital matter of whether he has given an instruction to the Fees Office in relation to hon. Members' salaries. It appears that most hon. Members do not believe that the Fees Office is operating under a decision of the House.

1.7 a.m.

Mr. Francis Pym: No wonder there is no phase 3. Hon. Members' pay and allowances are in a mess. In many ways, this is a disaster area, and it began with the handling of our salaries at the start of phase 1, when what could have been achieved was not implemented. That gave rise to a whole range of anomalies.
The one recommendation on hon. Members' pay that was wholly accepted by the Government of the day was the one that came before the House in 1971. If we now decided to agree to the Boyle Committee's recommendations, we should be returning to the practice of the last Conservative Government.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley). I do not find it embarrassing, however awkward it may be, to consider our own salaries. Earlier, we took decisions on an important matter about the conduct of hon. Members. In the same way, we cannot devolve decisions on pay. We have a duty to take the decisions for ourselves.
The Opposition have supported phase 2, have never sought to hinder it, and have never recommended that it should be broken or encouraged anyone to break it. Of course, we believe that the same approach should be applied to our salaries and we shall support the Government's proposals. It is entirely right that hon. Members should experience the full enormity of the implications of phase 2, £4 a week and all the benefits that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will gain from that.
However, the increase for hon. Members is unfair and unjust because the expenses that hon. Members necessarily incur if they do their job properly are increasing


at a rate that is infinitely faster than £4 a week. I think that in common with many other citizens outside the House, Members of Parliament have suffered a reduction beyond the fall in the standard of living that those in like jobs might be thought to be suffering at present. The present position is especially severe for hon. Members.
There is no phase 3 and we do not know how long the Government will last as a result of there being no phase 3. After all, the Lib-Lab pact was based upon the desire of the Liberal Members to continue the Government in office to negotiate a phase 3. That has not happened, so we do not quite know how long the Government will remain in power. However, if they remain in office for some months, the Lord President will face major problems when dealing with salaries and allowances during 1978.

Mr. Mike Thomas: I have sought clear assurances from my right hon. Friend the Lord President about what will happen in 12 months' time. May we have clear assurances from the right hon. Gentleman in the unlikely and horrific event that he and his right hon. and hon. Friends are on the Government Benches in 12 months' time?

Mr. Pym: I think that the Lord President might be quite glad to be relieved of his duties in this respect. In fact, the Conservative record is entirely satisfactory. I shall not go into the details at this late hour but I am content to say that we shall take our responsibilities seriously.
Whoever sits on the Government Benches in 1978 will face some awkward decisions and will have to bring some difficult recommendations before the House. Of course, at the end of the day the House will decide what will happen. At this hour of the night I do not think it is right to become too deeply involved with pensions. The amendment of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) derives from the very anomalies that the Government have created. I know that there are pension issues that hon. Members want to raise on another occasion. Some of our colleagues find themselves in great difficulty because they are incapacitated, or for other reasons.
When the Lord President answered a Question in July 1975 he explained in detail that the cost of running Parliament was running at £14 million. In May 1977, less than two years later, the cost had risen to £23 million. That is the total cost, including Members' salaries, the staff and all the other overheads that are involved. In that period the Government think that their counter-inflation policy has been a raging success. We know that in the same time some hon. Members have received an increase of £6 a week, while some have received no increase, and that we are about to receive an increase of £4 a week.
It is a fantastic fact that hon. Members are suffering what for many of them is an extremely serious position. There is a real shortage of income without adequate compensation for rising expenses. The cost of running this place in less than two years has risen from £14 million to £23 million. Is it not out of proportion that we should be having a debate at this hour of the night about £4 a week, which is the sum that we are graciously allowed to receive under phase 2, when the figures show that the cost of running this place has increased so enormously? That introduces the reality of the world in which we are operating.
This is an immensely serious problem, which I recognise for my part, and which my right hon. and hon. Friends certainly recognise, that will face the Government next year, whatever their colour. They will have the task of trying to resolve the immense difficulty of coming out of our present pay situation and getting salaries and allowances in this place on a basis that is acceptable, understandable and reasonable for hon. Members.

1.14 a.m.

Mr. Foot: No one who has listened to the debate and no one who has studied the facts will doubt the strong sense of grievance that prevails in the House about the confusion, the anomalies, the difficulties and the inadequacies of the present position of Members' pay. I do not seek to underrate or dismiss the situation in any sense. However, I believe that hon. Members, especially those who voted for previous measures, must take responsibility for the views and decisions that they have made. They must take account of how some of these previous decisions contributed to the confusions.
It is not just a question of the recommendations of the Government having achieved this situation. Those recommendations derive from different aspects of pay policy and from the accumulation of earlier difficulties.
That has to be accepted by hon. Members on both sides of the House. Of course, there are a few, such as the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), who opposed the proposition a year ago, but that is not the position of most hon. Members. I am taking full responsibility for the matters for which I voted. Indeed, I think that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) does, too. He nods his head. But he was not doing so a few minutes ago.
The decision of the House not to accept the full Boyle recommendation but at the same time to accept the pension figure proposed by Boyle is one cause of the anomaly. The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire and many of his right hon. and hon. Friends take the same view as the Government. The Boyle Report came out in 1975 and was introduced before the operation of the pay policy, as was rightly pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). But the Opposition agreed with the Government that the full Boyle proposition could riot be introduced.
Some hon. Members—for example, my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, West and Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas)—said that the full policy should be adopted. But that did not apply to the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire. I suggest that he should take responsibility for the way that he voted then just as I am prepared to do so. It would have been fanciful and absurd for the House at that time to adopt the full Boyle recommendation. That was the view then taken by the Government and by the majority of hon. Members. Every hon. Member who accepted that proposition should accept the responsibility now. Some hon. Members say "No. We voted for the full amount. We could have avoided the anomalies if we had done it then." But there would have been other difficulties.

Mr. Mike Thomas: I follow and accept the logic of my right hon. Friend's argument. But what is he doing to implement the resolution on linkage?

Mr. Foot: I shall come to that point. But other hon. Members, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, have made speeches and they are entitled to an attempted reply from me.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foot: No. There is not much time left. I wish to reply to those who have participated in the debate. I have listened to every speech that has been made and I want to make an orderly reply.
When we came to the £6 proposition a year ago, I was in favour of it, and so were the vast majority of hon. Members. It is all very well to say that it created anomalies, but it gave many hon. Members an extra £6. Of course, they had to pay some tax on it. I believed that it was right, and the overwhelming majority of hon. Members accepted it, too—anomalies or no anomalies. I stand by the decision that I took on that occasion and on this occasion. It would be a disgrace for the House, having accepted the policy for other people, to say "We shall not apply phase 2 to this. place".
I know that some hon. Members can say that that was the view that they took. The right hon. Member for Down, South has opposed the application of every incomes policy in whatever form to this House. He is entitled to say "I am opposed to the whole thing." Indeed, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) can make a similar claim. But it is not open to those who accepted and approved both the £6 and the £4 policy to go back on those decisions or, at any rate, creditably to go back on those decisions.
I am not going back on those decisions. Having been a party to and having voted for them, I believe that it is necessary to sustain that position, and that is the honourable course for hon. Members to take.
I now turn to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). I fully acknowledge the strength of his argument. I do not dispute that it is powerful. It derives from


some of the anomalies. I accept that there has been a different method of dealing with the £312 and the £208. The £312 was added to the pension figure whereas the £208 total figure was not. I can understand the argument. It is a strong case. I stand by what I said in the letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury.
If the House were to re-open in phase 3 the anomalies that existed in phase 2, many people in the country could attempt to do the same in phase 2 or phase 3. If the House set out to apply that doctrine it would injure the application of the 12-months' rule. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury and the right hon. Member for Down, South do not care a damn about the 12-months' rule, but some of us do. From what we hear from the Liberals, they have been in favour of the 12-months' rule.
I am in favour of defending it outside the House and I shall also defend it inside the House. If we were to use this opportunity to re-open anomalies, believe me other wage earners would want to do the same. The anomalies derive not from a uniquely bad feature in our pay policy but from any type of pay policy. We have a voluntary pay policy. We never did what the Conservatives did and made the payment of a sum above a certain amount a criminal offence.

I have no power to make decrees on this matter. All I can do is to invite the House to seek to apply as fairly and properly as it can what we seek to apply to others in the country.

If hon. Members were to say that because of some change in our arrangements we now want to apply for the earlier £6 they would be allocating to themselves a higher increase in this period than is allowed to others under the pay policy. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Of course they would. That would be unfair. If we did that we could give up any idea that we could carry any pay policy in the country.

I urge the House to adopt what we advocate. I fully accept that the Government will have to come along over the coming months with proposals to try to deal with these matters, to clean up anomalies and to deal with pensions. That cannot be done this year under the pay policy, and it would be wrong to try to do it.

Mr. Alf Bates: Mr. Alf Bates (Bebington and Ellesmere Port) rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 19, Noes 71.

Division No. 218]
AYES
[1.25 a.m.


Banks, Robert
Lamont, Norman
Stokes, John


Bell, Ronald
Maude, Angus
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)


Bottomley, Peter
Miscampbell, Norman
Wiggin, Jerry


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Winterton, Nicholas


Gardiner, George (Reigate)
Rathbone, Tim



Goodhew, Victor
Ridley, Hon Nicholas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Haselhurst, Alan
Sims, Roger
Mr. Michael English and


Higgins, Terence L.
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Mr. Michael Shersby.




NOES


Ashton, Joe
Dormand, J. D.
Mahon, Simon


Atkinson, Norman
Ellis, John (Brigg &amp; Scun)
Marks, Kenneth


Bates, Alf
Evans, John (Newton)
Mather, Carol


Beith, A. J.
Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Molyneaux, James


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Biggs-Davison, John
Freud, Clement
Moyle, Roland


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Glyn, Dr Alan
Noble, Mike


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Graham, Ted
Ogden, Eric


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Grant, George (Morpeth)
O'Halloran, Michael


Callaghan, Jim (Middleton &amp; P)
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch


Cant, R. B.
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Price, C. (Lewisham W)


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Hurd, Douglas
Pym, Rt Hon Francis


Coleman, Donald
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Rodgers, George (Chorley)


Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Rooker, J. W.


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Kinnock, Neil
Roper, John


Cowans, Harry
Kitson, Sir Timothy
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
McNamara, Kevin
Ross, William (Londonderry)


Deakins, Eric
Madden, Max
Skinner, Dennis




Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Tinn, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Snaps, Peter
Urwin, T. W.
Woof, Robert


Spearing, Nigel
Ward, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Stallard, A. W.
Weatherlll, Bernard



Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Futham)
White, Frank R. (Bury)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Stoddart, David
Whitehead, Phillip
Mr, Joseph Harper and


Stott, Roger
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mrs. Ann Taylor.


Main Question put and agreed to.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The Question is the main Question—

Mr. Ogden: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Mike Thomas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

TABLE 1



Description of Member
Yearly rate of salary




£


1.
Member not within any other paragraph.
6,270


2.
Member receiving a salary under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 as Comptroller or Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household., Junior Lord of the Treasury or Assistant Government or Opposit on Whip.
4,220


3.
Officer of this House or Member other than member of the Cabinet, receiving any other salary under the Act of 1975, or receiving a pension under section 26 of the Parliamentary and other Pensions Act 1972.
3,908


4.
Member or the Cabinet receiving salary ouch'. the Act of 1975.
3,208


(2) The ordinary salary of every Member shall be regarded for pension purposes as being at the rate of £8,208 a year (the proper rate for Members within paragraph 1 of Table 1).


(3) Members of each of the descriptions in the first column of Table 2 shall be credited, by way of supplement to their salaries, with amounts at the yearly rate specified in relation to that description in the second column of that Table (that is to say amounts adjusted for increases of salaries in 1976 but otherwise equal to 5 per cent. of the yearly amount by which the salary of a Member within paragraph 1 of Table 1 falls short of what a Member's ordinary salary is regarded to be for pension purposes).

TABLE 2



Description of Member
Yearly rate of supplement


1.
Member within paragraph 1 or 2 of Table 1 who draws the whole of his salary.
£ 96·90



2.
Member within paragraph 1 or 2 of Table 1 who does not draw the whole of his salary.
£96·90 plus 5 per cent. Of the amount forgone, but not together exceeding £112·50.


3.
Member within paragraph 3 or 4 of Table 1.
£112·50.

Mr. George Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although you understand them, some of us are a little mystified by the rules of this place.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair has to put the Question first and deal with points of order afterwards.

Resolved,
That, in the opinion of this House, the following provision about salaries and pensions of Members of this House should be made with respect to service on or after 13th June 1977:—
(1) The salary payable to Members of each of the descriptions in the first column of Table 1 below shall be at the yearly rate specified in relation to that description in the second column of that Table.

I am a little disturbed at the fact that I misunderstood what was happening. What worries me is that I suspect the Front Bench did not misunderstand.

When I rose to speak, I moved Amendment (e)—or should I say I purported to move—Amendment (e)? Whether, according to the rules of the House, I effectively moved the amendment, I do not know, but I seem to remember that a previous speaker who had an amendment to move was invited by your precedessor in the Chair to make sure that he moved it.

It was my job to move my amendment, and I understood from the Table—though this is no doubt a fault of my misunderstanding and not of the advice that was given to me—that so long as the Lord President sat down before the end of the allocated time, or was brought down before the end of the time, all the Questions could be put. If the Lord President had sat down in time, and if no closure had been moved, would all the Questions have been put?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Only the Question on Amendment (a) would have been put, assuming that a Division took place on it.

Mr. Cunningham: Do I understand that all the Divisions that were due to take place could take place only if the last of them had been begun before the expiry of the hour and a half allocated to the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is correct.

Mr. Foot: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham). Mr. Deputy Speaker I am, naturally, concerned at what has happened. I had no idea that my hon. Friend's amendment would be excluded from a vote by the procedures that were adopted. In view of what has occurred, and in view of the debate that has taken place, I should like to say how I think the House can best deal with the situation.
What I am seeking to do is to ensure that there shall be fair treatment for my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and others who have put their case on this matter and feel that they have raised serious questions in their

amendments. If they feel aggrieved that they have been excluded because of the way in which the vote was taken, I should like to put a suggestion to them. I am sorry if it is taking a little time to explain the point of order.
If my hon. Friend's amendment to add £312 to £208 had been carried, it would have been necessary, if the House was to comply with that arrangement, for there to be some alteration in the law that applies to this matter. That is one of the objections that we had to the proposition, although that could be overcome.
I wish to remove any sense of grievance that my hon. Friend and some of my other hon. Friends may feel. I did not wish to inflict this sense of grievance upon them. I say to them that after the recess I shall be prepared to look at this matter afresh to see how we can bring it before the House so that there can be fresh discussions on this issue. In any case, if my hon. Friend's amendment were to be carried, there would have to be on our return an alteration in the law to meet the situation.
I promise that when we return there will be an opportunity for the matter to be freshly debated. That does not mean that the view I hold on the subject will not be presented and that the House will not argue the matter. I give the undertaking that the matter will be brought up again in order to remove any legitimate sense of grievance that there may be.

Mr. George Cunningham: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I accept that the Lord President's understanding of what would happen was the same as mine. In those circumstances I think that he personally has made a fair suggestion, though whether all others on the Front Bench are as innocent I am less certain. My right hon. Friend's suggestion is a jolly good way of dealing with the left-over bit of that last motion and also of dealing with the next motion. I suggest that we settle for that—that we postpone my amendment and the ministerial motion as well.

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES

1.42 a.m.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I would still seek to ask the House to approve the motion dealing with ministerial and other salaries. It would be unfair not to Members of this House but to some Members of another place if we were not to pass the motion. [Interruption.] I understand that some of my hon. Friends may say that they do not wish to take any action which may assist to enhance the pay of those in another place.
The motion will not be of general application to everybody in another place. It will be of application to some who are amongst the very lowest paid of the lot, to some who, though conducting operations on behalf of the Government, are paid less than ocher Members of that House and others engaged in other public activities.
I know that the motion has anomalies in it similar to some of those which were accepted by the House and with which there is no simple way of dealing. I hope that the House will approve the motion. I do not believe that it is necessary for the House to debate it at length.
I repeat, now that I am not merely speaking on a point of order on the question of the £312, that if the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) could have been put, and if the House had voted for it, my understanding is that we would in any case have had to bring some motion—possibly some form of legislative change—before the House to regularise the position. We will look at the matter and bring a proposition before the House when we return so that we can renew this discussion. In the meantime, I ask the House to deal with the motion dealing with ministerial and other salaries, which deals with some of the anomalies further.
If I may stray slightly beyond the general discussion, I will say this further. Of course I agree with what has been said generally in the House tonight. I was seeking to say at the end of the discussion—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. May I, as this is a timed debate, ask the right hon. Gentleman to indicate to the Chair the point at which he intends to move the motion? I do not wish to be disrespectful. I am merely anxious that we keep in order.

Mr. Foot: I thought that I had already moved it. If there has been any misapprehension in any quarter on that subject, I will put it right by moving the motion again. I beg to move,
That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 29th June, he approved.
I am happy so to move.
I ask the House to accept the motion and to return to the other matter and, I have no doubt, to the more general subjects when we return after the recess.

1.45 a.m.

Mr. George Cunningham: In case it should be thought that I am rising to speak against this order only because of what has just happened, let me assert that that is not the case. There are two reasons why I insisted that this motion should be taken separately from motions Nos. 4 and 5, even though they were taken together. The first is that I have something to say about this order which did not relate to what has gone before, and the second is that before remotely committing myself in respect of motion No. 6 I wanted to see what happened on motions Nos. 4 and 5. Experience has shown that my attitude was justified.
Motion No. 6 is of an entirely different character from motions No. 4 and 5 because it is to approve a statutory order laid under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. As I understand it, and the Lord President might want to confirm or deny this, the intention here is to increase by £208 the salaries actually paid to Ministers in the House of Lords. Can the Lord President confirm that that is what he wants to be able to do, and that that is all he wants to be able to do?

Mr. Tim Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that this debate is completely out of order in that in the Business Motion put by Mr. Speaker at 10 p.m. this motion is not identified as one of those which can be debated after 10 p.m. I believe,


therefore, that it is out of order for us to debate it now.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. This is an order which runs for 1½ hours, under the apropriate Standing Order.

Mr. Cunningham: As I understand it, the motion is automatically suspended and does not need a suspension order to be taken after 10 p.m. That is another of the oddities of our procedure.
I was seeking to get, by means of an intervention from the Lord President, confirmation that what he want to be able to do—and all that he wants to be able to do—as a result of this order is to enable the Government to pay £208 a year more not to all Ministers but to most Ministers in the House of Lords. I think that I see the Lord President nodding. I thought that is what he wanted to do. It is interesting to note how different, therefore, the reality will be after this order is passed, if it is, from the provision on the statute book.
If the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) were present I would apologise to him because a year ago he raised precisely the same point. I am not sure whether he had gone into it a great deal and I certainly had not gone into it at all. I rather poured cold water on the objection he was raising. He was pointing out that last year's order raised the salary to be paid to a large number of Ministers, whether in the House of Lords or the House of Commons, but that there was no intention that that increase should be paid. The Government are coming to the House saying "Let's amend the figures that can be paid to a large number of Ministers". This does not concern all Ministers, not the Prime Minister for example, but the list certainly includes the Lord President's salary. The Government are saying "We want legal authority to increase all those salaries by £208 but we shall only actually pay it to those Ministers who are in the House of Lords because the others will already be getting £208 as an addition to their salary as Members of Parliament". That is what this is about.
The Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975 prescribes the salaries which are to be paid. These are not the salaries which are payable but the salaries which are

to be paid to all Ministers. But the figures, and only the figures may be altered by order subject to affirmative resolution of the House. That power is contained in Section 1(4) of the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, which reads:
Her Majesty may from time to time by Order in Council substitute another figure for that given by subsection (2) or (3) above or by Schedule 1 or 2 to this Act".
An order which is intra vires by that Act can only alter the figures. It cannot separate, for example—and this is the key point—Ministers in the House of Lords from Ministers in the House of Commons. Yet that is precisely the object which the Lord President wants to achieve. He wants to increase the ministerial pay of Ministers in the House of Lords because that is the only way they can get the £208 increase. He does not want to increase the ministerial pay of Ministers in the House of Commons. He has got no intention of actually paying that increase, but he is providing for this to be increased legally. He says "We shall not pay them all. We shall pay it only to the people in the House of Lords."
The natural way to deal with that situation, one would have thought, would have been for the order to come forward saying that these increases will be made to the following Ministers so long as they are in the House of Lords. But there is only one class of office holder which is designated, and that class covers the Leader of the Opposition and the Chief Opposition Whip in the House of Lords. They are designated in the Act as such. All the others are designated by their ministerial titles, and the Act does not allow one to mess around with that and to distinguish between Ministers in one House of Parliament and those in the other.
Therefore, a clever civil servant asked: "How can we deal with this situation?" He said to the Lord President: "What you want to do is not legal. We cannot bring forward an order to do what you want to do because, if we do, it will get hung up by Graham Page. That is what was said.
The Committee chaired by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) would have flung it out. It would not have mattered a hoot whether that Committee had flung it out, because the courts would have flung it out. It would


have been ultra vires act. So the Government bring forward an order which is intra vires and which they do not intend to adhere to.
The Act says:
There shall be paid to the Lord Chancellor"—
one of the poorly paid for whom this increase is intended—
a salary. … There shall be paid"—
I shall leave out the Speaker of the House of Commons because he is not involved in this one.
But the schedule to the Act further lists ministerial offices and puts a figure against each one. It says:
The salary to be paid to the holder of any office mentioned above in this Schedule shall be of the annual amount stated in relation to that office in column 2"—
and so on.
There is no provision there for a lesser sum to be paid at the whim or wish of the Government. If we pass the motion as it stands, what we are doing is to increase all these salaries and to provide by statute, because we are amending the statute, that all these increased salaries shall be paid.
I accept that no court would hold that because a statute said that such-and-such a sum should be paid that would prevent the beneficiary from asking the Paymaster-General to pay him or her a little bit less. I assume that what the Government have in mind is the Prime Minister or some other unfortunate Minister having the task of sending out a minute to all designated Ministers who are not in the House of Lords and asking them to sign an attached copy letter to the Paymaster-General saying that they do not want the last £208. If they did not do so, the Paymaster-General would have to pay up.
There are very few Ministers in the House of Lords who are involved, but in order to give these people an increase the Lord President has to change the law and increase his own salary by £208, although he already has £208 as a result of what we have done tonight. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the Chief Whip, all Ministers of State, all other Ministers who are heads of Departments and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury all get a double ration as well. Parliamentary Secretaries for some reason that I cannot

fathom out, get a double double ration because their salaries go up by £520 instead of £312.
I wonder what the comparison is between this and what applied before tonight. When I was arguing with the Lord President that my modest little amendment, which has been manoeuvred out of existence, should be adopted, the Lord President agreed that it was not contrary to the pay policy. But he claimed that the great British public would not understand that. They would think that we were grabbing too much for ourselves.
I cannot understand why, if the great British public are so stupid that they cannot understand my little amendment, they will not get into a sweat about the Lord President's having a double ration increase on his salary. According to him they are quite clever enough to understand that but too stupid to understand my little amendment. I wonder at the ease with which the Lord President conjures up this picture of the great British public as always being dead set against anything that I want and very happy with anything that he wants.
I suggest seriously to the House that if there is no way of legally increasing the salary of Ministers in the House of Lords by £208 without having legally to increase the salaries of a very large number of other Ministers by £208—quite contrary to pay policy, that is without doubt, and even the oracle would certify that on tablets of stone—it should not be done at all.
I believe that the order should simply be dropped. The Lord President has a worthy objective, to increase the salaries of Ministers in the House of Lords by £208, but it cannot be done without abuse of the order and without rigging it to get it to comply with the Act and not get hung up in the Statutory Instruments Committee. Yet is it in an order which he has no intention of implementing. I do not know whether the Lord President is content with that sort of jiggery-pokery, but I suggest that the House should not be.
A year ago the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was on to this point and we all missed it. But he was right, and this year it has been noticed again. I seriously


believe that an order of this kind is an abuse and should not be passed.

2.1 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I wish to congratulate the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) on the perceptive way in which he has made a telling point against this order. The whole House has nothing but admiration for him. It is about time the Lord President invited the hon. Gentleman to join him on the Treasury Bench. If the hon. Gentleman were to become a junior Minister in the Privy Council Office, not only would the Lord President's life be easier but so would the lives of us all.
This order relates to the previous order, and the Lord President in the short time he had to answer the previous debate was unable to answer some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) and other hon. Members. May I ask the Lord President to reply to some of the points on linkage and what is to happen in a year's time? This also affects ministerial salaries.
I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's generous gesture, following the procedural mix-up over the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. The House will welcome a return to the subject of pensions in the autumn. I hope that that sort of attitude will prevail in future on any recommendation if Boyle is asked to report again, so that the recommendations are tabled for the House to decide. It should not be left to the Leader of the House to pick and choose, it is the House that should be asked to approve or not to approve. I believe that the whole of the Boyle recommendations should be tabled so that the House may decide. What the right hon. Gentleman said half an hour ago seemed to indicate that that sort of thought was not alien to his attitude.

2.3 a.m.

Mr. Foot: Let me first say a word or two about the motion—and I shall come to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in a moment. I wish to make it as clear as possible in the circumstances our purpose in moving this order. I think the situation was fairly

stated at the beginning of my hon. Friend's remarks, although I would not accept what he said towards the end.
The motion seeks approval of a draft Order in Council to authorise salary increases of £208, or 5 per cent. where this is less, for all Ministers and Office holders in the other place who have no parliamentary pay that could be increased. The maximum salaries for all Ministers and Office holders are laid down in the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975, but the rates in the schedule to that Act may be amended by Order in Council subject to the draft being approved by resolutions in each House. The Act gives no power, however, to differentiate between rates paid to Members of this House and those paid to Members of the other place.

Mr. George Cunningham: Exactly.

Mr. Foot: "Exactly", as my hon Friend says. But it does permit a lesser amount to be paid in any individual case than that authorised in the schedule at any time. Section 4(2) of the Act gives statutory cover not to pay the rate promulgated in the schedule. That covers part of the point made by my hon. Friend.
Last year we had to increase the salaries of Parliamentary Secretaries on the understanding that the increase of £312 would be paid only to Members of the other place. This year, when there is no £8,500 limitation, we have to follow the same procedure also for Ministers of State and certain Cabinet Ministers. The effective date for this year's increase of £208, which will accordingly be paid to Ministers and Office holders in the other place, will be 30th July 1977, 12 months after the last increase.
I come now to what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. As I said, I do not accept the deductions which he adduced at the end of his speech. I fully accept that it is an anomalous situation with which we have to deal, and this is a roundabout method of seeking to achieve what we want, but there is no simple method that I have been able to discover. No doubt, when my hon. Friend arrives on the Front Bench, some years hence, whenever that will be, some more ingenious method of achieving this result will be found.
I do not think that my hon. Friend quarrelled with the purpose here and the proposals which we put on the Order Paper, as last year, to achieve that purpose, however difficult it may be. Indeed, I feel that my hon. Friend should have congratulated me on my ingenuity, since, obviously, this elaborate device was entirely thought out by me. It was worked out in spare moments between listening to debates on other subjects. I have, therefore, taken to heart what I feel must be my hon. Friend's congratulations. This is a great moment in my parliamentary life—to have a tribute coming from such a quarter—and now, knowing that if anyone is a master of pedantry it is my hon. Friend, having produced a motion of this character I feel that I can have some pretence to be in his class. On that happy note, therefore, I hope that I can seek his support.
I turn now to what was said by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr, Baker). I do not wish to be out of order on this motion, having so far succeeded in staying in order, but I wish to say a word in response to the hon. Gentleman and to the House generally. I fully acknowledge what has been said to me and to the Government and to others in the debate here tonight. What we have proposed is, of course, a series of interim measures for dealing with the situation, and that in turn gives rise to some fresh anomalies, all of which have been exploited in the debate. I make no complaint on that score, because that is what the House of Commons is for, and very often the discussions of one year can lead to the reforms and improvements of a later period. It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh. They, too, have to seek some kind of accommodation in trying to secure better pay, and a better pay system, for Members of Parliament. Both better pay and the better pay system are among the requirements. I am strongly in favour of that. But it has to be achieved in some conformity with the policies which are being applied in the rest of the country, and Members of Parliament have to accept some of the burdens and some of the intricacies and anomalies which are imposed, in my opinion inevitably under some forms of pay policy, on the rest of the country.
On those grounds, therefore, I hope that the House will be prepared to accept the motion. I hope that it will accept from me the undertaking, which I repeat, that we shall come back to the particular question on which my hon. Friend was not able to have a vote. We shall come back to that question, as we should have had to do in any case if he had been victorious in his amendment. That is not a promise to accept my hon. Friend's proposition, but it is a promise to debate it afresh. We shall come back to that, but we shall come back, I hope, in a measurable time to a much fuller and more adequate discussion of all the matters which have been debated in the House tonight.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Lord President find it possible to use the word "linkage" and refer to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) and his hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) and Nottingham, West (Mr. English), and refer also to the motion which was passed two years ago? He has been asked to talk about this on several occasions tonight, and I am sure that it would be a great help both to the House now and to the future prospect if he could deal with that specifically.

Mr. Foot: I referred to that earlier, although it is not in order on this matter. I referred to it when I replied to my hon Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) earlier tonight. A resolution was passed by the House on the subject of linkage. I entirely agree that that is the way in which the House should proceed to secure a more adequate method of dealing with the matter. However, it has not been possible during the past two years for the House to deal with the matter in that manner because of the pay policy. It has not been possible since the original decision was made in 1975—and it was agreed by almost the whole House—to proceed to that resolution. I fully accept that that resolution is the proper way in which the House should eventually deal with the matter, although I cannot give any date when it will be possible. Certainly, I am sure that when the House comes to a more general discussion of the whole matter that resolution will be followed.

Mr. Michael English: The resolution says "in the next Parliament". What is there to stop the Lord President from setting up a procedure that would operate in the next Parliament or after 31st July 1978, whichever is the later?

Mr. Foot: There would be problems with the pay policy in giving an undertaking that an increase would be made at a future date. If all pay agreements were to be settled on that basis there would soon be a breakdown of any possible pay policy. I could not give such an undertaking.
The resolution has been passed by the House and it is an indication of the way in which the House wishes to proceed. It is the proper method by which the matter will eventually be settled.

Mr. Mike Thomas: Does my right hon. Friend accept that we are placed in an unfortunate position in this matter of salaries? The Lord President's judgment of when the time is right in these matters is of paramount importance because he is the only one who can bring the matter before us. That is why we are dissatisfied when the Lord President says "In this Parliament or some time after, eventually, some time, never". Can my right hon. Friend not give us something more concrete?
I find it hard to credit that if my right hon. Friend were to find a form of words that would make us happier, a flood of claims on the same basis would rush through every trade union negotiating gate in the country. I do not believe that, or that my right hon. Friend is prevented from giving us just a little more.

Mr. Foot: I have already, during an earlier debate, given all the indications about how we should proceed. I have nothing to add. I do not believe that it is possible for hon. Members to believe that they can divorce themselves from what is happening with the pay policy. That is why so many anomalies have arisen. Hon. Members must face that as well as other people. Hon. Members who have voted in these matters cannot come along a few months later and complain

about what they have voted for. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Thomas) does not always accept responsibility for what he has advocated in these matters. I hope that the order will be accepted and that we can seek ways of escaping from all these anomalies and of moving towards the linkage resolution. However, the method of overcoming these difficulties will have to take account of the pay policy. All hon. Members should recognise that.

2.14 a.m.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I should like to make another brief intervention. I am not happy about the order. I acknowledge the perception of the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) in raising the issue and preventing it from going through on the nod, and so obtaining greater explanation of the order from the Lord President than was forthcoming when the right hon. Gentleman first explained it to the House. The right hon. Gentleman was seeking to avoid giving the House an opportunity of taking responsibilities and facing things in a proper way.
The Leader of the House has attempted to protect the House from having a debate and settling its own conditions and those of Ministers. We are no longer living in a deferential society and the right hon. Gentleman has to face debates such as this because Ministers are unwilling or unable to say to the House that they seek certain considerations but that the House has the freedom to make the decision.
The Leader of the House would do his own reputation a service and would get rid of the deferential society that we seem to have in the Chamber if he were willing to put the issues to the House. I hope that he will assure us that we shall have an opportunity to make decisions on pay of hon. Members and Ministers and that we shall not be protected from accepting the responsibility and facing the issues in the way that the right hon. Gentleman has sought to protect us tonight.

Question put:—

Division No. 219]
AYES
[2.16 a.m.


Ashton, Joe
Glyn, Dr Alan
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Baker, Kenneth
Graham, Ted
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Beith, A. J.
Harper, Joseph
Snape, Peter


Biggs-Davison, John
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Stoddart, David


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Hurd, Douglas
Stradling Thomas, J.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Lamond, James
Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Lament, Norman
Urwin, T. W.


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Mahon, Simon
Ward, Michael


Coleman, Donald
Marks, Kenneth
Weatherill, Bernard


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Mather, Carol
White, Frank R. (Bury)


Deakins, Eric
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Whitehead, Phillip


Dormand, J. D.
O'Halloran, Michael
Wrigglesworth, Ian


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Pym, Rt Hon Francis



Ford, Ben
Rathbone, Tim
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Roberts, Gwllym (Cannock)
Mr. Alt Bates and


Freud, Clement
Roper, John
Mr. James Tinn.




NOES


Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)
Rocker, J. W.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Bottomley, Peter
Skinner, Dennis
Mr. George Cunningham and


Kitson, Sir Timothy
Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. Michael English.


Madden, Max
Winterton, Nicholas



Molyneaux, James
Wise, Mrs Audrey

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1977, which was laid before this House on 29th June, be approved.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SOUND BROADCASTING)

2.28 a.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith): I beg to move,
That, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of 16th March 1976 and certain Recommendations made in the Second Report of the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting—
(1) the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Broadcasting Authority ('the broadcasting authorities') be authorised to provide and operate singly or jointly sound signal origination equipment for the purpose of recording or broadcasting the proceedings of the House and its committees subject to the directions of the House or a committee empowered to give such directions ('the committee');
(2) the broadcasting authorities may supply signals, whether direct or recorded, made pursuant to this Resolution to other broadcasting organisations, and shall supply them to any other organisation whose request for such a facility shall have been granted by the committee, on such conditions as the committee may determine;
(3) no signal, whether direct or recorded, made pursuant to this Resolution shall be used by the broadcasting authorities, or by any organisation supplied with such signal, in light entertainment programmes or programmes designed as political satire; nor shall any record, cassette or other device making use of such signal be published unless the committee shall have satisfied themselves that it is not designed for such entertainment or satire;
(4) archive tapes of all signals supplied by the broadcasting authorities shall be made, together with a selection for permanent preservation, under the direction of the committee.
As the House will be aware, the report from the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting that we are discussing tonight stems from the decision of the House in March last year in favour of the principle of the permanent sound broadcasting of our proceedings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. Before the Minister embarks upon his speech, may I inquire whether he proposes to take the two items on sound broadcasting together or singly?

Mr. Smith: That was my intention, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: To take them together?

Mr. Smith: Yes, this one and the next one, which is:

That it is expedient that the powers of a committee of the House in relation to broadcasting authorities and other organisations for which provision has been made in the Resolution of the House this day relating to Sound Broadcasting be exercised by the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting.
That decision by the House followed the experiment in the public sound broadcasting of our proceedings that took place during the summer of 1975.
What this report, and the motions before us, are concerned about, therefore, are the physical arrangements and other detailed matters that need to be decided before any permanent sound broadcasting of our proceedings can begin.
These matters are, of course, matters for the House rather than for the Government. Ministers have throughout emphasised that the whole question of the broadcasting of proceedings is one on which they will be guided, whether on questions of principle or of detail, by the wishes of Parliament.
We have, however, as a Government, certain special responsibilities in this matter.
In the first place, it is up to us to provide an opportunity for Parliament to come to a conclusion in this matter. This we are doing tonight, and perhaps, at least so far as sound broadcasting is concerned, we shall now finally settle a matter which has been before the House for several years.
Secondly, the sound broadcasting of Parliament and the implementation of the recommendations proposed in this report inevitably involve the expenditure of public money. The House will, therefore, probably expect from us an indication whether, if these motions are approved, the necessary funds and accommodation would be forthcoming.
We have accordingly, in the period since the Joint Committee reported, been in touch, on behalf of the House, with the broadcasting authorities about the Committee's recommendations in order to establish, in consultation with them, what might be the timetable of possible implementation, and the expenditure involved, if we were to proceed on the lines proposed in this report.
The Joint Committee has recommended that broadcasting should begin in the autumn. I am afraid, however, that, because of the time necessary to prepare


the specialised accommodation required for the preparation and selection of recorded material, this would only be possible on the basis of occasional "live" broadcasts which do not make use of recorded material. Regular broadcasts of proceedings, including edited daily summaries, on lines similar to the programmes during the 1975 experiment could, I hope, begin in February of next year, by which time temporary studio and editorial accommodation in No. 1 Bridge Street could be made ready.
The broadcasting authorities would be willing to proceed on this basis, provided that they were assured that work would begin forthwith on the adaptation—including sound-proofing—of permanent accommodation for them in the Norman Shaw South building. This is a considerably more extensive building operation, and will inevitably mean some inconvenience to hon. Members.
Taking into account the time it would take to get hold of the necessary specialised equipment, and the need to restrict certain major work to the long recess, this permanent accommodation could not be available until about October 1979. I am satisfied that this long delay is unavoidable, and I am grateful to the broadcasting authorities for indicating their willingness, if required, to work in temporary accommodation meantime.
The broadcasting authorities have indicated that they would be prepared to pay the full costs of the capital equipment required and to bear the running costs involved. The BBC's capital costs were estimated in August 1976 to be £400,000 and its running costs £275,000 a year. The BBC has, however, stipulated that it would expect public funds to bear the cost of the adaptation of its permanent accommodation in the Norman Shaw South building, and to share the costs involved in its moving into temporary accommodation in No. 1 Bridge Street.
It is estimated that the cost of the specialised permanent accommodation required in the Norman Shaw South building would be nearly £200,000. Taking account also of the Government's share of the costs of preparing temporary accommodation in No. 1 Bridge Street, the wiring of Committee Rooms, and the provision of listening and archive facili-

ties proposed in the Joint Committee's report, the overall cost to public funds of the implementation of permanent sound broadcasting on the lines proposed in the report would be about £310,000. In addition, there would be some comparatively minor staffing costs connected with the listening and archive facilities, and the coverage of Committees, as well as some maintenance costs. These are matters for the House to decide.

Mr. Roger Moate: The Minister has referred to the cost that will fall upon the BBC. Presumably some cost will fall upon the IBA. What cost will fall on the IBA?

Mr. Smith: I believe that the initial cost to the IBA will be about £70,000 and that running costs will be about £60,000 a year.

Mr. Clement Freud: How much money has already been spent? If we do not vote for this motion, how much money will have been lost?

Mr. Smith: The money spent is that which the House authorised and amounts to about £70,000 for accommodation. The Government's attitude is that no money shall be spent until the House authorises the motion.
I can accordingly say that if the House endorses these motions the Government will not place any financial obstacle in the way of their implementation, and that we shall do our best to carry out the wishes of Parliament as soon as possible.
Apart from the questions of timing and costs, there are perhaps one or two other aspects of the Joint Committee's report on which it would be helpful for me to comment. In the first place, perhaps I might say a word about editorial balance.
It is clearly essential before the House takes a final decision on this matter for us to be satisfied that, if sound broadcasting of our proceedings goes ahead, we can be assured that the balance of selection in summaries of our proceedings should be fair as between the parties; between the front benches and the back benches; and between the various aspects of parliamentary proceedings. I might say, in passing, that of course there was never any suggestion that broadcasts should be confined to Front Bench speeches, and the broadcasting authorities


have confirmed that they are fully aware of the need to maintain a fair balance in this respect. The Joint Committee came to the conclusion that in these matters of editorial judgment responsibility must rest with the broadcasting authorities. It has accordingly turned down the idea of a parliamentary broadcasting unit, and recommended that parliamentary oversight should be exercised by a Standing Joint Committee. This, again, is a matter for the House. But I think that I should say that we believe that the course recommended in the report is the right one, not least because of the costs involved in establishing a broadcasting unit.
Moreover, I believe that the experiment and the continuing experience of sound broadcasts such as "Today in Parliament" have demonstrated that the broadcasting authorities are fully aware of their responsibility in this matter, and are fully capable of exercising a proper judgment. I am sure, too, that the Joint Committee for which the motion provides would exercise an effective check, when necessary, in this field, as well as serving as a valuable source of guidance and advice to the broadcasters.
I believe also that under the terms of the motion the Joint Committee would be able to ensure that proper control was exercised over the appropriate use of parliamentary material.
Apart from providing for the establishment of a Committee to oversee sound broadcasting, and indicating its powers, the report also recommends that broadcasts of our proceedings should, as appropriate cover proceedings in Committees as well as on the floor of the House. I have indicated that the Government would provide the necessary funds for the wiring of Committee Rooms if the House so decided. The—

Mr. Michael English: What do those last three words mean? If this motion were to be passed today, does it mean that Committees would be broadcast?

Mr. Smith: Yes. It means that we cannot provide funds until the House wills and that if this motion is passed the intention is that Committees will be broadcast.
The Joint Committee's proposal that individual Committees should not have power, any more than the House, to decide whether the broadcasting authorities should have access to particular sessions would seem reasonable—

Mr. John Roper: There are certain Select Committees which meet in private. Would they continue to do so?

Mr. Smith: Of course. So far as select committees meet in private, the decision would be up to them whether they continued to meet in that way.

Mr. Ben Ford: What the Minister said is very much the case. The proposal is for two Committee Rooms to be excluded from wiring so that secure proceedings can take place.

Mr. Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because there are Select Committees dealing with things like defence matters, which are classified, which are not suitable for broadcasting and Committee Rooms are set aside for that purpose.

Mr. Philip Whitehead: Paragraph 31 of the report deals with exclusions from Committees. It says:
The Joint Committee has given consideration to the proposition that it should be for individual Committees to decide whether the broadcasting authorites should have access to particular sessions. To give such a power to individual Committees would be to give them a power which it is not proposed should be available to either House. If a Committee wishes to exclude Strangers from its meetings, it may resolve to do so but the Joint Committee can see no justification for the selective exclusion of the broadcasting media from public access to Select Committees".
Does that mean that there are occasions when a Select Committee may decide that it will hold a session or part-session in private and exclude members of the Press but that the recording would have to go on?

Mr. Smith: Rather than be drawn into hypothetical matters I would rest on my general proposition, which I have already given to the House.
The recommendations with regard to the passing of connections to the signal origination room through the Hansard Control Room, and the arrangements for Committees to be made aware that their


proceedings are being recorded or broadcast would seem to need further consideration by the proposed Joint Committee in consultation, as necessary, with the broadcasting authorities.
The proposals in the report with regard to the creation of listening facilities for Members, for the creation of an archive of recordings, and with regard to the questions of copyright and parliamentary privilege are again matters for the House, and perhaps I might just say that the Government would, of course, as necessary, implement the decision of Parliament. The making of an archive tape is specifically provided for in the motion before us.
I should in conclusion, however, point out one difficulty that has arisen over Section 4 of the Independent Broadcasting Act 1973, which is referred to in paragraphs 48 and 49 of the Committee's report. The Independent Broadcasting Authority regards itself as precluded by this provision from including in its coverage of parliamentary proceedings speeches or extracts from speeches, made by directors or officers of programme-contracting companies. This affects, 1 believe, two hon. Members of this House and a number of Members of the other House. We propose to bring forward the necessary amendments of the Act as soon as a suitable opportunity occurs, but it is unlikely that such legislation could be enacted before broadcasting begins, as the Joint Committee suggested.

Sir Paul Bryan: I happen to be a director of a television company. Does that mean that if I speak in the House, say, next November, the portrayal of my voice over the radio will. not be permitted?

Mr. Smith: As I understand the position, the IBA would take the view that the hon. Member's voice should not be conveyed to the public through its agency, but the BBC would, of course, transmit the hon. Member's voice to the public. There is a difficulty here. I must be frank with the hon. Member and say that, until legislation is amended, the IBA takes the view that it will not be able to transmit his voice to the public over its system of communication.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The Minister mentioned the question of privilege. When the actual broadcast goes out, will that have privilege or qualified privilege? Secondly, the Joint Committee is there to oversee fair play. It can obviously look at the background rules, but can it put on any form of mandatory sanction if it does not consider that those rules are being observed?

Mr. Smith: On the first point, broadcast proceedings will have qualified privilege in the same way as Press reports of Parliament's proceedings have qualified privilege. The privilege of hon. Members will remain absolute in that what is conveyed over the medium will have conferred upon it the same privilege as hon. Members have in the House.
On the point about the effect of the control of the Joint Committee, the Joint Committee can, in effect, turn off the switch if it wants to do so.

Mr. English: The Minister said that broadcasts would have qualified privilege in defamation. How will they get it? Presumably, legislation will be passed to give it to them.

Mr. Smith: No. My understanding is that they will have qualified privilege under the rules of the law on defamation as they presently stand, and there is no requirement to have other legislation on this matter.

Mr. Freud: On the point about directors of broadcasting companies, I believe that it was very correct for the Act to stipulate that they may not broadcast on their own. Will the Minister give an assurance that this matter will be brought before the House and that we shall be enabled to vote on it? After all, it is very easy for a director to resign, rather than for us to change an Act.

Mr. Smith: What I have said is that the Government believe that the Act should be amended if a suitable opportunity occurs. I cannot say when a suitable opportunity will occur. The position is that the hon. Members affected by it will not have their contribution to the proceedings broadcast while the Act remains as it is. The Government will give an opportunity to amend it, but I can give no assurance about when it


will be amended. As the hon. Member said, if hon. Members affected by this disability wish to rid themselves of it, there is another way in which they might do it.
Finally, I wish, on behalf of the House, to express my thanks to those hon. Members who served on this Joint Committee for the work that they have put into this very thorough and workmanlike report, and to the broadcasting authorities for their very ready co-operation. I hope that what I have said will also have made some contribution towards providing the House with an informed basis on which to reach a decision on this longstanding and important matter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has not selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English).

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not questioning Mr. Speaker's ruling, but I should like to point out that the content of the amendment was a specific recommendation—No. 18—of the Joint Committee. It is a separate and distinct proposal. The House will have no means of dissenting from it, although it may agree with the general report. There was a general expectation that there would be a debate on this matter, and I apprehend that a number of my hon. Friends have stayed here until this late hour especially for this purpose.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be in order to refer to the amendment in the debate. The way to deal with the matter is to vote against the motion if hon. Members feel so inclined. The amendment itself has not been selected for debate.

Mr. Whitehead: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As I am sure you will be aware, a previous Committee set up by the House recommended the contrary procedure. It suggested that there should be a broadcasting unit. Therefore, it seems to many of my hon. Friends and myself that this is a fundamental point which does not in any way impinge on the issue whether we have broadcasting of our proceedings. This concerns two recommendations put in contrary fashion by two successive Select

Committees. It must, with respect, be wrong that the House cannot have an opportunity of choosing between these two recommendations, as well as deciding on the motion itself.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but it is not for me to interfere in any way with the selection that Mr. Speaker has made—or non-selection in this case.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Does this mean that we have to either buy the total package or turn down the total package? Mr. Speaker's ruling places one in an awkward situation. I speak as one who is not concerned with this issue, but it would be a tragedy if the House lost broadcasting because of this, or got broadcasting of the sort that it did not want because it was not able to consider the matter. Is there any way in which one can ask Mr. Speaker to reconsider this, even at this early hour of the morning?

Mr. English: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It might be possible for the House to have its fears calmed. I think it is said that the broadcasting authorities need four-months' notice to start. They could not start in November if the motion was not passed tonight. They could start in February, and do it on a proper basis, and not on the ad hoc basis that my right hon. Friend wants.

Mr. Rathbone: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I asked whether there was a point of appeal, even at this early hour of the morning, to Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. Mr. Speaker has made his decision.

2.49 a.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: Whether we have our own parliamentary broadcasting unit or whether the unit is controlled by the BBC or the IBA is not a matter with which I am particularly concerned, but I can understand that others are concerned about it, and it seems to me that the points that have been made emphasise the unsatisfactory nature of this debate.
I make my position clear. I opposed sound broadcasting. I accept that on 16th


March 1976 the House voted by a fairly considerable majority in favour of the principle of sound broadcasting, but it did not establish details of the method, the timing and the cost. It was not clear to me from the motion that was tabled that tonight was the great night of decision, the turning point, the conclusion to which the Minister referred.
It seems to me that in many ways this is a very unsatisfactory way of dealing with the matter, first because of what has been represented already by a number of hon. Members. We have to accept the package. We cannot choose between one alternative and another. I can understand supporters of sound broadcasting being discouraged by that proposition.
I had thought that tonight was not the night of final conclusion because the motion does not embody many of the details the House is entitled to have before reaching a conclusion. The Minister gave some very helpful information; he gave details of the proposed accommodation and he gave us a rough idea of costs. It is strange that, though the Joint Committee and the Services Committee have been giving great consideration to the question of accommodation, when the proposition is finally put to us the details of the accommodation are not presented in printed form to the House so that we can consider them in depth. The details were given quickly and easily in the Minister's introduction.
That gives the impression that the whole thing once again has been rushed right at the last minute. I am not saying that the whole procedure has been rushed, but the impression is that this has to be got through at the last minute so as to allow work to start by the BBC, for example during the Summer Recess. I can understand the desire to do that by those in favour of sound broadcasting, but it emphasises the unsatisfactory nature of the proposition. We are entitled to a Joint Committee report on the accommodation prospects and much greater precision on the cost involved.
I shall vote against the motion. I do so on the one fundamental ground of cost. The House has not yet reached a conclusion in terms of approving the expenditure. It has approved the expenditure but not yet provided the means. This

is where the House and the public should be able to have second thoughts.

Mr. Geoffrey Johnson Smith: What is my hon. Friend's objection to costs? I assume that he expects the operation to cost something.

Mr. Moate: I believe that the cost will be excessive. People might be in favour of sound broadcasting, but when told that it will cost £1 million they might say it is not worth it. That is the cost we are talking about. The capital cost to public resources of all descriptions—in that I included the BBC because that is a public corporation—is at this stage £750,000, according to the Minister. Most people would expect that to reach £1 million by the time broadcasting starts in a year or 18 months' time.

Mr. John Smith: Is the hon. Gentleman's objection to the spending of any money on sound broadcasting? Would £10 be objectionable? Would half the projected cost be objectionable?

Mr. Moate: As I stressed earlier, the House has expressed a view. Even though I objected to the principle of sound broadcasting, if the cost were nominal it would be folly to oppose it on that ground, for the House has expressed its clear and decisive democratic view.
What I say is that to spend £1 million when we are making such extensive public expenditure cuts elsewhere is not justified. It is not just £1 million. That is the initial cost but we shall be committing the BBC, and perhaps the House, to spend several hundred thousand pounds more every year on the maintenance of the broadcasting system. I know that many members of the public say that they would like sound broadcasting of the House. When I have asked them whether they valued it to the extent of paying £1 million capital cost and several hundred thousand pounds more every year they have changed their minds and said that they did not know that it would cost that much money.
I do not believe that it is right that we should spend that sort of money on this proposition. The Minister said, when the expenditure was incurred on these handsome broadcasting boxes that it was being done on the basis of a specific authorisation by this House. That was right. On this occasion he tells us that tonight we


have to reach a conclusion. He has said that the consequence of this will be the expenditure of many hundreds of thousands of pounds of public funds. Where is the motion? It is not contained in what is on the Order Paper. This is a broad authority to proceeed with broadcasting arrangements, but we need a specific proposition authorising the Government to spend the money. That point emphasises the unsatisfactory nature of the motion we are discussing and the unhappy arrangements for discussing a matter of this magnitude.

2.57 a.m.

Mr. Michael English: We all know what is the proper procedure for this proposal. In a totally different context we have just been through it all earlier tonight. First there is a report from a Select Committee. The Minister moves that the report be taken into consideration and there are motions suggesting that the report be approved, maybe with certain modifications. Once that has happened, amendments are tabled and the issue is determined. That is the proper way of going about this. The Government should not attempt to put legislation through the House in this way at nearly 3 a.m.
I suspect that there is a somewhat nefarious reason for the Government's behaviour in putting this issue on at such a late hour. It could have been debated even later but for the forbearance of my hon. Friends and myself in not taking up the time we could have taken on earlier matters. We could have been discussing this at breakfast-time.
Why do the Government not want us simply to approve the report of the Joint Select Committee? They have sufficient confidence in the Committee to table a motion suggesting that it should be set up again and used as the "oversight" committee for broadcasting. I believe that the Committee has produced an excellent report, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) on his chairmanship of the Committee and its report. I agree with nearly everything in the report. It would have been worth while for the House to consider that report in the normal way. The subject is sufficiently important to warrant at least a half-day debate, not one of 1½ hours.
My hon. Friend has tabled a motion and fairly explained that this does not mean that broadcasting can start, as was envisaged by all of us, in the manner envisaged by all of us—with edited versions. The motion means that such broadcasting can start in February. I sat on the first Committee to consider this issue. Barring the late Lord Stephen King-Hall, I think I was the first person in this House ever to raise the issue of broadcasting, way back in the 1964 Parliament. That was when we discovered that an exiting Committee, the Select Committee on Publications and Debates Reports, the "oversight" committee for the Official Report, Hansard—which has some relevance to this debate—had the power to consider broadcasting. We did consider broadcasting. We produced the first report on that subject. We recommended a broadcasting unit akin to Hansard, which so successfully serves us in terms of the verbatim report of Parliament. But we then said that that was only in the prodction of the feed—the radio noise and, eventually if one has television, the visual signal that goes out from this place.
For various reasons we did not want a full version. I know that some hon. Members do, but we explained why we did not recommend that. We did not recommend it on specific advice from Australia, among other places. If we had an unedited signal going out to the viewer or the listener it would change the procedure of this House. In the case of Australia, for example, ministerial statements are made at 7 o'clock at night because that is the maximum listening time. Australia has changed its procedures so that Ministers can make their statement when there are more listeners. One can well understand why Ministers might want to do that, but we do not want any changes in our procedures of that character.

Mr. Rathbone: I fear that the hon. Gentleman may have misled the House, because Australia has continuous broadcasting. That would not be the case here and, therefore, a change in the procedure would not apply.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood me. We are not going to get an edited version when this starts. All the Select Committees have said that


there should be editing and that there should not be continuous broadcasting. We have always said that. The Government are now saying that between November and February—and who is to know that it will not be later?—it will have to be continuous because there are no editing facilities.
They are not suggesting that there should be continuous broadcasting throughout the day from start to finish. But the editing facilities will not be available. Because of that, a considerable problem arises. The biggest single problem is that the BBC will have to decide in advance what it considers worth recording and, one trusts, sending out.

Mr. Spearing: My hon. Friend is talking about a very important principle. Is he telling the House that during the intervening period there will not be the reintroduction of the experimental facilities which we had during the summer before last? I think that a lot of hon. Members assumed that during the intervening period there would be temporary operations and not, as my hon. Friend is now suggesting, full extracts and no editing.

Mr. English: As I understand it, that is the basic situation. As I understand it, the BBC is being asked between November and February to pre-select newsworthy items. One mentioned to me by a governor of the BBC was Prime Minister's Question Time. He put that forward as an illustration of how Back Benchers would be served. He pointed out that Back Benchers would get their opportunity during Prime Minister's Question Time. I pointed out that Back Benchers would have reservations about Prime Minister's Question Time being necessarily an occasion for adequately displaying the virtuosity of Back Benchers.

Mr. John Smith: Since my hon. Friend has raised this matter, and has put down an Early-Day Motion relating to a fair balance between Front Benchers and Back Benchers, I would tell him that I have checked with both the BBC and the IBA specifically about that question and received the assurances from them that I mentioned in my speech.

Mr. English: I am aware of that. I suspect that the fact that 200 Members

so rapidy signed that motion may have suddenly caused that assurance to surface, because it was not mentioned before.
But these are side issues. The main question is why do the Government suddenly want to hurry this? The editing facilities and rooms were not given to the BBC or the other broadcasting authorities because the Services Committee and the Property Services Agency had to consider intricate arguments about whether Cromwell Green or various other places should be used. Ultimately the Government said they would not allow these editorial facilities. Then, suddenly, they speed up and want to reverse the process. They want it so soon that the facilities not provided by the Government will not be there so that it cannot be done in the way that every Select Committee has wanted.
One ebullient junior Minister tells us that we do not know what will happen by next spring. There might be an election, and Front Benchers must get on the radio before that comes to pass. Maybe that is the reason. Whatever it is, this House would far prefer to have what it has wanted and voted for for the past 10 years—a properly edited version. I have always voted for that sort of broadcast—not something ad hoc to serve the purposes of the Front Bench.
It is not only that. I mentioned the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit in my amendment which was not selected. Here I part company with the Joint Select Committee's report. I quite understand that if the BBC sends out the feed for radio it will not play around with it. I do not believe that the BBC is capable of acting like President Nixon with tapes. That is not the problem.
Hon. Members forget that it is always possible in five or 10 years, if the radio broadcasting goes well, for the House to agree to television broadcasting. The reason why we suggested a unit akin to Hansard was that then there would be a producer in control of six or eight cameras, and he will have to choose which camera picture goes out on the feed. That is the first stage in the whole process. Before any editing is done, that should be done by the broadcasting unit, which should be akin to the Official Report, which has served us so well for more than a century.
The news media can select what they want from the feed. No Select Committe would dispute that the media have editorial rights. Hansard prints our proceedings verbatim, but no newspaper ever prints it all. They select what they want. The same should apply to radio and television broadcasting.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Will the hon. Member agree that while the official version of the proceedings of this House is now recorded in Hansard, there will, in future, be two versions if this motion goes through. We shall have the tape and the printed word. Hon Members have the opportunity to check the printed word, which is tidied up a little. Presumably the tape will not be tidied up, so we shall have the difficulty of two different versions. The version to which the public will have the most access will be the wrong one.

Mr. English: The hon. Gentleman raises a point of great substance. It is mentioned in the Joint Select Committee's Report—a report which I should like to see considered by the House, partly under the heading of copyright and partly in other ways. Suppose the copyright of the signal does not inhere in this House. Hon. Members will remember the court case when the Attorney-General came to the House to seek permission to quote the Official Report in court, which permission was refused by the House because the House did not wish it. But the copyright of the tape, if it were in hands other than those of the Official Report, would not be our copyright. Therefore, those proceedings off the tape could be used in court proceedings, even though the House did not wish that to happen.
It has always been said that the broadcasting authorities need four months' notice to start and it is understood that their facilities will be ready in February. We all have experience of the dates for building work not being adhered to. In other words, we may assume that the facilities will be ready early next year, unless something goes wrong with the constructional work. When that constructional work takes place, the BBC will be able to go into its facilities, even though they may be temporary rather than permanent. They could start on a somewhat "scratch"

basis, and there will be plenty of time when we return in November to give four months to the organisation to undertake the job so that it can start more or less on time.
All that will be lost is the ad hoc selection of news in advance. I do not know how one selects news in advance. It means that if a Prime Minister is to make a statement it will be news and one can tell it in advance, whereas if somebody throws a CS gas container from the Gallery that is not news because it was not thought that it was about to happen.
The Minister refrained from quoting to the House the fact that the BBC itself would be happy to start in the manner I have suggested in the spring. It is also true that everybody is happy with the BBC handling the "feed". I understand that the ITN wants nothing to do with it becaue it is none of its business. But IRN conspicously did not want a pre-selection of news in this way. Eventually it was forced to fall into line, and the broadcasting organisations are now willing to do it if forced to do so by the Government. But why should they be forced? Why do they have to be pushed into doing something they do not want to do? It would be better done properly in the spring. The broadcasting organisations will accept the decision of the House, and it is only fair that the Government should say so, otherwise the BBC could be drawn into what I suspect might be the overtones of a political problem. Therefore, I suggest that we should wait until the spring, pass the necessary resolution when we come back after the Summer Recess, and then act on the basis of considering the Report from the Joint Select Committee, amending it if we choose to do so. I suggest that we should do the job properly, as has always been advocated by every Committee that has examined the matter, and that we should not pass this resolution now.

Mr. John Smith: The House should be aware that if the motions are not passed now, it will not be possible to start broadcasting in February 1978.

Mr. English: It has always been said that four months notice is necessary. If that is not the case, will the Minister say so?

Mr. John Smith: My hon. Friend is working on the assumption that four months' notice is all that is required in order to get the temporary accommodation constructed and adapted in time, to order materials and various other matters, whereas I am advised that if the motion is not passed tonight it will not be possible for No. 1 Bridge Street to be available in February 1978. I think that the House should be aware of that before it takes a decision.

Mr. English: Again, the broadcasting organisations say that they can do it if given four months' notice, but the Government say that they must have longer notice. That is what is said. It always stems back to the Government not providing facilities for editing, the Government suddenly deciding to hurry ahead—one wonders why—and saying that they want much more notice for the provision of such facilities as they were not providing. They want more notice than the broadcasting organisations themselves want, since they want only four months to do it. I still think that this motion ought not to be passed tonight.

3.16 a.m.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I hope that I shall be forgiven if I do not follow exactly the line of argument presented by the hon. Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English), since I rather hope that the House will pass the motion tonight as an important step forward in carrying to culmination the decision in principle which was taken in March last year by a very substantial majority that the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House should take place.

Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way so early in his speech, but it is important to get this right, especially in relation to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English). Is it not correct that when the House agreed in principle to do that—I accept that—it was on the basis of the experiment, but the basis of the experiment was an edited version and not what I understand we are to get for the first three months if the motion is passed tonight? Is that not of itself something which should cause the hon. Gentleman to reflect?

Mr. Rathbone: That is right—it does—and I shall develop that point.
In its report, the Joint Committee considered many of the matters which were raised as objections or points of worry during the debate in March last year, and I shall touch on one or two. In that debate, I expressed a preference for a parliamentary unit to control the signal origination. The Joint Committee considered this, and I find the arguments which the Committee put forward immensely compelling. I feel that I should now endorse the recommendation of the Joint Committee that the BBC be the originating unit for the broadcasting, though it is important to establish the Joint Comittee as a standing committee so that, control of that still remains in the hands of the House.
I believe that that will have the advantage that well-trained professionals will be carrying out these very technical operations, while control of those professionals remains in the hands of the House. It is acceptable to the broadcasting organisations—that is as the Joint Committee reported—and the Joint Committee, which would be controlling those technologists, would be able to pick up and act on the many points which have already been raised in the debate and will, I am sure, be made later as well.
That arrangement will avoid the one immense disadvantage of a parliamentary unit with parliamentary responsibility having to hire, train and develop the career structure of technically qualified people in a unit within the House.
I suggest that the parallel with Hansard is quite inexact in that Hansard is a record, not a mass public communication of what goes on in the House, and it is not what we are talking about tonight.
There seem to be no difficulties of copyright. In so far as there were originally any difficulties, these were mentioned in the First Report of the Joint Committee, and they seem to have been overcome in the consideration and preparation of the Second Report.

Mr. English: It has been given away. That is the point.

Mr. Rathbone: That interjection is not entirely correct. It is a question of who


should own it, and I take it from the Second Report of the Joint Committee that where the ownership lies is not an important question. So it is not a question of giving something away, although the Joint Committee did mention that one would be able to control—[Interruption.] Does either my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) or the hon. Member for Nottingham, West wish to say something?

Mr. Tebbit: My comment was that a remark of that kind will take a great deal of tidying up on the tape before it can mean anything whatever, whereas we know that the good folk who work for us on Hansard have an unerring knack of making some sort of sense out of what hon. Members say.

Mr. Rathbone: I do not think that that got the argument very much forrader.

Mr. English: The Select Committee said that taking copyright in the archive tape should be considered, but merely because it is a bit difficult to find someone to own the copyright for the House, the matter should not be dismissed as being of no importance. I am surprised to hear a Conservative hon. Member utter the phrase that the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) used a moment ago—that the matter of ownership was of no importance. I shall be glad to quote him in a subsequent debate on another issue. It is of vital importance. It is a question of who can use the material or give it away.

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the Report of the Joint Committee. Perhaps I have misunderstood it, but I think not because I have read the Report carefully. Its conclusion was that the ownership of the copyright was not important. It is not necessary to vest that ownership in a body. If I am wrong I should be most grateful if the Chairman of the Joint Committee would elucidate this matter. The Committee said that it was not important and that control over what was broadcast should be vested in the joint committee that it suggested should be established. That is one of the reasons why I believe that such a committee should be established, and that would also happen to fit in tidily with the lack of necessity for a parlia-

mentary unit to control the broadcasting. The matter is not, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, West suggested, unimportant—

Mr. English: No. You suggested that.

Mr. Rathbone: No. The Joint Committee said that it was unimportant.
One question of worry remains and that is a technical matter. It concerns the reproduction of the so-called atmosphere of the House. I am less certain that the Joint Committtee that the atmosphere microphones should be left on. Hon. Members will recall that the original broadcasts from the Houses were extremely noisy and that there was an over-accentuated background of noise. That was corrected somewhat during the one-month trial but it was not entirely corrected.
It was reassuring to find that it would be relatively inexpensive to broadcast Committee proceedings. That reassurance went down well following the expensive predictions of the original report. A figure of £43,000 was mentioned for acoustic improvements, but that is a small price to pay to broadcast this workshop of Parliament.
I should like to touch on two points which have already been raised in the debate. The broadcasting of the whole House must be available when broadcasting starts and not just the broadcasting of the Front Benches. I was a little unclear when the Government introduced the Report to the House this morning whether it was planned that only the Front Benches would be broadcast initially under the new time scale that was outlined. The Minister is shaking his head, and that is reassuring. It will be possible to start broadcasting Committees in advance of the proceedings of the whole House. However, that should not be a part of the introduction of broadcasting. Broadcasting should not start until the whole House can be broadcast. The start should be simultaneous.
Another point that has been correctly raised concerns costs.
There will be considerable costs to the House, to the BBC and to the IBA. Much of that will be one-off expenditure. However, it is not correct to say that the


element of cost was not considered when the House voted for broadcasting in principle. The question of cost was mentioned very often in that debate, even to the extent of a projected cost of £2 million for two or three years' time being put forward. It was against the background of that appreciation of the cost that the decision in favour of the principle of broadcasting was taken.
It is appropriate that we are discussing the subject at the end of this Session. No more important advance of parliamentary democracy could be made than a positive decision on the motion, and this has been a Session that has not been noted for democratic processes and practices. I hope that the House will wholeheartedly and emphatically support the motion.

3.26 a.m.

Mr. Ben Ford: I am pleased to support the motion. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) on a thoughtful and reasoned speech. Perhaps I can deal with some of the points that he raised.
The hon. Gentleman asked about microphones in the Chamber. This topic is alluded to in the evidence to the Joint Committee. It was taken up by the broadcasting authorities who agreed that, in conjunction with the Tannoy authorities, they would have to look at the microphone system. They agreed that the atmosphere microphones were unsatisfactory and that the problem would have to be overcome.
The interpretation of the hon. Member for Lewes in relation to copyright is correct in the opinion of the Joint Committee. That point is also referred to in the evidence of the Attorney-General who confirms that it is the use of the signal rather than its ownership that is important.
On the question of Hansard and its standing in comparison with the broadcasting authorities, paragraph 52 of the Committee report says:
It has been suggested that the existence of such a tape may cast doubt upon the authenticity of Hansard as the official report of Parliamentary proceedings. The Joint Committee doubts that a real difficulty exists. Under its proposals, the tapes will not be produced by Parliament and therefore will have no official status as Parliamentary records even if a court or other body chose to take cognisance of them. More importantly, it

would appear that to use other records to challenge the Official Report would be in breach of the Bill of Rights.

Mr. Tebbit: I am prepared to take a small bet with the hon. Gentleman that, in the event of this proposal going through, it will not be long before that which the public hears through its radio sets becomes recognised in the public mind and, eventually even in the official mind, as the official record whereas that which is written down and is seen by comparatively few will be gradually brushed aside. Sooner or later, we shall have to come to the question of who is to tidy up and correct the tapes.

Mr. Ford: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but he has reinforced the importance of passing the motion and ensuring that there is a Joint Committee to oversee the output.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) asked about the broadcasting of only Front-Bench spokesmen. The chief assistant to the Director-General of the BBC wrote to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, saying:
The BBC had hoped that, from November, we would be in a position to do occasional live broadcasts, but in doing these we had never intended to broadcast only Front Bench speakers. This is a misunderstanding on the part of the sponsors of the motion.
He was referring to the motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West.
Nevertheless, if MPs are concerned on this point, and fear that Front Benchers might receive undue prominence in such live broadcasts, the BBC is quite happy to wait until the temporary accommodation is ready in No.1. Bridge Street and to do no live broadcasting at all until permanent broadcasting can begin in January or February 1978.
I ask the House to note that the paragraph commences "The BBC had hoped". That indicates that it was not under any pressure or compulsion from the Government to commence broadcasting.

Mr. Spearing: Although the balance of Front Benchers and Back Benchers might be assured, the very nature of the parliamentary occasions that are selected would have its own weight. That is what concerns my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and others. Will my hon. Friend tell us why


it is not possible for the temporary facilities that are to be introduced in November, if we get that far, to be the same as those used in the summer of three or four years ago, whenever it was, when we had the proper edited version from the word go?

Mr. Ford: That is because we cannot obtain permission to obtain the temporary hutted encampment upon Cromwell Green that would be necessary.

Mr. English: Who decided that?

Mr. Ford: I hope that the House will reach a conclusion today and finish the long process that began in 1964, which latterly I have had the opportunity of following through as Chairman of the broadcasting sub-committee that originated the sound experiment and Chairman of the sub-committee that evaluated the pilot scheme. Lately I have had the honour of being the Chairman of the Joint Committee that has presented the First Report and now the Second Report.
The Joint Committee has spent a good deal of time taking evidence from expert sources. It is most grateful to all those who gave their time to the Committee, including my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General. I draw attention to paragraphs 17 and 18 of the Report in which are discussed the provisions of the signal from the Parliamentary Broadcasting Unit. The Committee went into this issue extremely carefully and came to the conclusion that the most efficient method, and the method providing the least charge upon public funds, is the solution that we propose. A parliamentary unit would involve legislation to give it a legal personality and to enable it to be invested with copyright. It would involve the employment of highly qualified staff, who would be occupied for only 34 weeks or 37 weeks per year.

Mr. Roper: Did the Committee consider the possibility of secondment of staff rather than the idea of full-time staff? It seems that the BBC staff will be occupied for only 30 weeks a year. Is not their position exactly the same?

Mr. Ford: I think not. The BBC has holiday rotas, for example, that would enable it to absorb the spare capacity available at the House.

Mr. English: Will my hon. Friend tell me of any respect in which the arguments used against the broadcasting unit of the House cannot be used against the existing Hansard? The Hansard staff are professionals. They are employed for 30 weeks a year in the House. They are officers of the House whom we have to find and recruit outside.

Mr. Spearing: They are expensive.

Mr. English: They are expensive. They cost a lot of money, and rightly so because they do a very good job. But what is the difference?

Mr. Ford: As I understand it, Hansard is a private firm, or it was for a long time.

Mr. English: It has not been a private firm for nearly 70 years. It was years ago that it was a private firm.

Mr. Ford: I am not acquainted with the internal operation of Hansard so I cannot make a direct comparison for the benefit of my hon. Friend.

Mr. English: The Committee never studied it.

Mr. Ford: I bring to the attention of the House the agreement that is outlined in Appendix 6, which has been arrived at between the BBC and the IBA, about the origination of the signal. Both organisations have given clear undertakings about the use of the signal. The Committee's propositions would also provide a channel of communication between the House and the broadcasting authorities. The Joint Committee was most concerned with the broadcasting of Committees and the Minister has indicated that the Government are willing to find the resources to accomplish this if the House approves the Report.
Broadcasting authorities themselves attach considerable importance to the broadcasting of Committees. I am sure that the arrangements for this will go forward in parallel with the broadcasting of the Chamber.
I foresee a number of developments arising from the commencement of broadcasting. Apart from the distribution of clips and edited editions to local radio stations and to overseas stations, there will be an increasing requirement from the public for extracts from broadcasts for


the purposes of education, research and possibly propaganda.
Upon another occasion the House may be discussing its relations with the public. It seems to me that eventually we shall require to think in terms of a parliamentary information department, and a substantial part of its work would be to process and handle recorded extracts on a commercial basis.
Finally, I should like to express my appreciation of the hard work and splendid support given to me personally by members of the Joint Committee. I also thank the joint secretaries for their expert and willing assistance.
I commend the report to the House, and urge the passage of the consequent motions on the Order Paper.

3.37 a.m.

Mr. John Stokes: I oppose the motion on the ground that it would totally alter the character of this House. It would also be expensive, and we do not know how long our continuing commitment to these new expenses would be.
This debate illustrates the point that the House sometimes agrees to a principle on general grounds and then, when it comes to tackle the matter in detail, finds all kinds of problems. The more I have sat and listened to speeches by hon. Members tonight, the more worried and troubled I have become over the whole project. The physical difficulties are considerable. We have the problems of editing the spoken and the written word. Above all, we have the problem of utterly changing this Chamber as it has developed over the centuries.
We all know that this House has a unique character. We know that it has an atmosphere of its own. The cut and thrust of debate here exists nowhere else in the world. Hon. Members still have considerable independence, despite Whipping, particularly when non-partisan subjects are being discussed, as we have seen for many hours earlier today.
When we debate here, despite what the experts tell us, thank goodness, we are speaking not to the world or even to England but to each other. I believe that all this would be utterly ruined if our debates were to be broadcast. It would bring a totally new element into

our discussions. The temptation, of which we are all aware, to play to the gallery, already evident in some of our colleagues, would be immeasurably increased. Members would want their constituents to hear them on the air as often as possible, whether or not they had anything useful to say.
Reference has been made to Prime Minister's Question Time. I believe that Question Time in general is getting out of hand, and Prime Minister's Question Time particularly so. Yet that apparently will be one of the highlights of this new non-stop variety performance.
A further powerful objection is that our proceedings would increasingly have to be subject to editing, with all the pressures for the sensational to take precedence over the serious contribution. I have heard the word "newsworthy" mentioned several times in the debate. That little word worries me almost more than anything else. Of course, once we get editing, with the best will in the world, bias is bound to come in.
The last objection is what I should describe as the social one. I like broadcasting. Sometimes I even look at television. I fear, however, that once broadcasting takes place, television is bound to follow with even more problems, difficulties and dangers.
We have too much broadcasting in our ordinary life. Certainly we have too much television. These Molochs of the media already tend to dominate our lives too much. They dominate the lives of children, and the young in particular. If we in this ancient House give way to this new fad there will be no end to it. There will be a demand for everything to be broadcast—the law courts and all our institutions.
We are in danger of becoming a nation of lookers and listeners instead of doers. There is far too much news and current affairs broadcast already. In the old days we made the news in this country. We did not listen to it every hour of the day. Our job as hon. Members of this honourable House should be to make a success of our lives and of our service to the nation and to play our part without bowing down to this craze for instant news coverage and the constant titillation to which we are subjected in public affairs.

3.42 a.m.

Mr. Phillip Whitehead: I shall not follow the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) in his argument about having too much news. Every time he speaks he tells us how the past worked. The predominant media of the day is broadcasting. In our votes we have acknowledged that it should have a role in taking the proceedings of the Chamber to a wider world and moving the House back into the centre of the forum of public debate from which it has been shifted by radio and television studios.
Nevertheless, the procedures adopted tonight are extremely unsatisfactory, not merely because we are being asked at 3 o'clock in the morning to debate the fundamentals of an issue upon which we spent a whole day but because the motions are confused and need not be passed in their entirety. We should approve Motion No. 7 and not Motion No. 8. I understand that it will be possible to have separate votes.
I say that because I believe that the House should be able to think again about the question of a broadcasting unit which has been rejected by the Joint Committee but which was recommended by the 1966 Committee. That is the only major point of substance on which I depart from the excellent work of the Committee, I pay tribute to the Committee.
The Committee was wrong on this issue. It was railroaded by the Government. It followed the false assumption that there would be a financial saving and that the experts should be let in. Someone has to operate the signals. As a producer, it would be natural for me to side with the professionals in this respect, but I am cynical about their claims about the origination of the signal and what should be done with it afterwards.
I wish that the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) had been selected. If we examine the motion and the Report upon which it is based we see several unusual features. First, broadcasting is in a state of flux. I speak with some feeling as a member of the Annan Committee on the future of broadcasting. We do not know what the next three or four years will bring.
The Report suggests that the IBA and the BBC will be the only outlets in the future. That might not be so. Perhaps there will be a plurality of outlets. My hon. Friend the Member of Bradford, North (Mr. Ford) suggested that it is not posible to have a broadcasting unit because staff would not be employed for a sufficient length of time each year.
In response to the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) he said that secondment would not be the answer. But secondment is the answer for the Open University, which works on terms that are similar to ours. It does not occupy people for all the year and it allows for some autonomy in broadcasting outside the large existing institutions.
That autonomy in broadcasting can be extended to mean a broadcasting unit which was recommended for this place in the previous Report but which for erroneous reasons was rejected by this Committee.
If we look at the Report we shall see that such a unit virtually exists in spite of the recommendations of the Joint Committee, in the effect of paragraphs 29 and 30 of the Report and the description we have there of what is to happen. Who is to pull the switches in the Committee Room? Who is to decide what is broadcast and what is not—because a feed is coming in all the time. In some cases it would merely be supplementary to the work of Hansard reporters and purely for the work of the House, and not for outside transmission.
Nevertheless with the feed using the same equipment, we shall find the Joint Committee proposals a clumsy way of doing it. We should think again and not pass the second motion.
A number of complex issues are not gone into sufficiently in the Report, of which the role of the proposed joint committee is only one. I have been able to touch on that concerning the broadcasting unit.
If we look at paragraph 23 we see slightly sloppy phraseology about the nature of programmes for which extracts are forbidden, such as political satire and light entertainment. During the previous experiment we had an occasion during the filming of "The Nearly Man" series where extracts were used in drama greatly


to the rage of some hon. Members. We do not know what other programmes may be in this category but then selection is a matter for careful thought. It should remain within the remit of the House.
That is essentially the case for a broadcasting unit. We should pass the first motion and reject the second.

3.48 a.m.

Mr. Clement Freud: I should like to support very much what the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) said. The House should remember that when the question of broadcasting was debated at a much more realistic time than 3.50 a.m. there was a substantial majority in favour of broadcasting the House. I would also remind the House that the experience we had two years ago, despite what people say, was, by and large, very successful and that all the fears expressed in the debate before the experiment we re found to be groundless. I accept that there were a number of points which aroused controversey, such as the variety programme in which they use a tape, but every transgression will occur only once.
We have only eight more minutes left for debate, and this is a shoddily tabled motion on a matter of great concern, not only to hon. Members but to the whole country. This is an inappropriate time to take a decisions which is important. The chances are that there will not be 40 hon. Members present so that our time at this unhappy hour of the day will have been wasted.
I hope very much that hon. Gentlemen will remember that when this matter was debated in a full House there was a large majority in favour of it. Let us vote, as was said by the hon. Member for Derby, North, for Item No. 7 on the Order Paper but let us wait until the second motion is tidied up properly and let us then look at it again, when perhaps we have given the go-ahead to the BBC and the IBA to put their building works in process so that we can get the recordings of the business of the House without too much delay.

3.50 a.m.

Mr. John Roper: I support very much what has been said by the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr.

Freud.) It is inappropriate that we should be reaching this important subject and this decision so late in the day. None the less, it is extremely important that we agree to the proposals in Item No. 7 on the Order Paper tonight, even though, as the hon. Member said, these are not altogether satisfactory. There are a number of details which many of us would have liked to see changed. However, this is something that the House has clearly willed, and I believe that we should broadly go ahead with this at this stage.
As the hon. Member and my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) have said, we should not agree to the precise form of Item No. 8 on the Order Paper, and then we can return and find what is the appropriate mix between the joint committee and the broadcasting unit that would be appropriate in the House.
Concerning broadcasting, I do not think that we shall be able to parallel the structure of Hansard. For many matters we shall need to use the broadcasting organisations as our agents. However, I believe that a small unit of perhaps one, two or three persons, working probably to the Joint Committee, in order to give supervision—not a large broadcasting unit but a small one—would probably be the appropriate compromise.
I very much hope that tonight we shall be able to give approval to the proposals in Item No. 7 and that we shall therefore be able to ensure that work is undertaken in the next few months and that once again we shall have broadcasting of our proceedings.

3.52 a.m.

Mr. John Smith: With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, perhaps I may reply to some of the points that have been raised.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, West (Mr. English) raised some points about the Front-Bench and Back. Bench relationships. I hope that I was able to reassure him about that. There is one point that I must qualify. That was regarding an intervention of mine to the effect that if we did not pass the motion tonight we should not be able to have the arrangements at No. 1 Bridge Street by February 1978. I think that it is possible that that might be done, but it is perhaps looking towards the realities


of when we may return to this matter after the recess, and it might be very difficult. I did not want to mislead my hon. Friend. Perhaps I was more emphatic on that point than the circumstances justified.
The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone) was generally in favour of the Report of the Joint Committee. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North (Mr. Ford), who was the Chairman of the Select Committee, answered some of the points that the hon. Member raised.
Perhaps I may say how grateful I was to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, North for intervening in the debate and putting so succinctly some of the points that had been in the Joint Committee's Report and answering very helpfully a number of questions raised by hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) raised again the general principle of sound broadcasting. The House took a very clear decision on this matter in March last year. What the House is being asked to do tonight is to will the means whereby that decision, which it made by a clear majority, may be carried into effect. I think that the hon. Member will accept that what he was doing was making a cri de coeur about the whole business of broadcasting. He even extended the matter to the televising of the law courts, which I am glad

Question accordingly agreed to.

to say is not a matter which the House is called upon to decide tonight.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Whitehead) raised an important matter about the sound broadcasting unit. A serious argument is involved in this matter. The Joint Committee came down against that proposal. It raised questions of cost and some other matters. At this hour of the morning one does not want to deploy a full battery of arguments against that proposition, although I understand that it was a serious matter put forward by hon. Members.

I understand the way in which the matter has been put forward, but the basic question that the House has to decide is whether it will follow the decision that it took in March last year. I have tried to outline the costs involved in the operation. Some hon. Members have expressed fears about the cost, but these matters have to be put into perspective. I suspect that some hon. Members would not be in favour of spending even one penny on broadcasting our proceedings, but if the House decides to have sound broadcasting, certain costs follow. The costs are reasonable, the estimates are realistic, and the House must take these into account in reaching its decision, which I hope it will do tonight. I hope, too, that the decision will be in favour of carrying out the decision that was taken in March last year.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 37, Noes 0.

SOUND BROADCASTING (JOINT COMMITTEE)

Motion made, and Question put,

That it is expedient that the powers of a committee of the House in relation to broad-

Division No. 221]
AYES
[4.07 a.m.


Baker, Kenneth
Ford, Ben
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Bales, Alf
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Skinner, Dennis


Beith, A. J.
Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)


Brown, Hugh D. (Proven)
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Urwin, T. W.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Ward, Michael


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Madden, Max
Weatherill, Bernard


Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)
Mahon, Simon
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Cooke, Robert (Bristol W
Marks, Kenneth



Deakins, Eric
Newton, Tony
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


English, Michael
O'Halloran, Michael
Mr Peter Snape and


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Rathbone, Tim
Mr James Tinn




NOES



Freud, Clement




Roper, John




Whitehead, Phillip




Wrigglesworth, Ian




TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Roger Moate and




Mr. Norman Tebbit.

It appearing on the report of the Division that forty Members were not present, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Question was not decided, and the business under consideration stood over until the next Sitting of the House.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (SERVICES)

Motion made,
That this House doth agree with the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) in their Fifth Rep art, on Computer-based Indexing for the Library.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

Hon. Members: Object.

PETITION

High Court Attendance (Officers of the House)

4.20 a.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to present a petition—and I have had to wait a very long time to do so—from Ferruccio John Calderan and Paul Louis Martin Butner, acting on behalf of Michael Hugh Litchfield and Susan Joy Kentish.
In view of the fact that I shall seek to move a motion arising from this petition,
I ask for it to be read.

casting authorities and other organisation for which provision has been made in the Resolution of the House this day relating to Sound Broadcasting be exercised by the Joint Committee on Sound Broadcasting.—[Mr. Tinn.]

The House divided: Ayes 29, Noes 4.

The Clerk of the House: The Clerk of the House read the petition, which was as follows:

To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.

The Humble Petition of Ferruccio John Calderan and Paul Louis Martin Butner, showeth that:—
(1) The first-named Petitioner is the solicitor representing Times Newspapers Ltd. and the second-named Petitioner is the solicitor representing Michael Hugh Litchfield and Susan Joy Kentish.
(2) Two actions have been brought in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division, against Times Newspapers Ltd, one by Michael Hugh Litchfield and the other by Susan Joy Kentish, the numbers of the two actions are respectively 1975 L.No. 2577 and 1975 K.No. 1034.
(3) In each action the Plaintiff claims damages for libel on the basis of articles published in the Sunday Times newspaper.
(4) In each action issues arise as to the investigations made by Mr. Litchfield and Mrs. Kentish into the practice of obtaining abortions in the United Kingdom, as to their methods of obtaining and recording information in the course of those investigations, as to their use of such information, and as to the publication of a book entitled "Babies for Burning" and the newspaper articles all of which were written by them following those investigations.
(5) On Monday 7th July 1975, Mr. Litchfield and Mrs. Kentish gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Abortion (Amendment) Bill. The Minutes of their evidence were ordered to be printed by the House of Commons on 7th July 1975 (No. 253-xi).
(6) The evidence given by Mr. Litchfield and Mrs. Kentish to the said Select Committee


as printed in the said minutes of evidence relates directly to the issues referred to in paragraph 4 hereof, and reference is desired to be made by your Petitioners in the two actions referred to in paragraph 2 hereof, to the evidence printed in the said minutes which was given by Mr. Litchfield and Mrs. Kentish as well as to the tape recordings, transcripts and documents which were laid before the Committee.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that reference may be made in the two actions presently proceeding in the High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division referred to herein to the said minutes of evidence, tape recordings, transcripts and documents, and that leave be given to the proper Officers of the House formally to prove the same according to their competence.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.

Ordered,
That leave be given to the proper officers of this House to attend the trial of the said action and to produce the said Report, and that leave be given for reference to be made to the said Report.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

HOSPITAL SERVICES (ISLINGTON)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

4.24 a.m.

Mr. Michael O'Halloran: At this late hour I wish to bring before the House the problems of many of the hospital services in the London borough of Islington. Should the plans of the Camden and Islington Area Health Authority take place, they will adversely affect the constituencies of both my hon. Friend the Member for Islington Central (Mr. Grant) and my hon. Friend the Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Mr. Cunningham) as well as my own.
It will help the House if I give the background to the present situation which is now under discussion in Islington. Early in 1971 I had occasion to raise in an Adjournment debate the situation at the the Royal Northern Hospital in my constituency. It was then under threat of closure. It was given an assurance by the then Minister, the hon. Member for Barkston Ash (Mr. Michael Alison), that there was a future for the Royal Northern Hospital. The situation now appears to have changed dramatically. Camden and Islington Area Health Authority, in its recent report, is proposing the closure

of the Royal Northern as part of its plans to expand the Whittington Hospital. The area health authority says:
The effective planning and development of the resources of the Whittington Hospital is considered to be an urgent necessity so that by the end of 1986 the acute services for Islington District will be concentrated on one site. In the short term, and until major capital improvements at Whittington Hospital have been accomplished, it will be necessary to make intensive use of the facilities of the Royal Northern. After that, the hospital should close.
But no indication is given as to how it will be possible to close that hospital or of its present use. Neither is there a functional analysis of the use of beds, and no waiting times have been given. The Royal Northern provides half the out-patient services in Islington. Can these be replaced by services at the Whittington site? The Royal Northern has to close its doors at the present time to some emergency medical and surgical admissions because of insufficient beds. Can these services be replaced at the Whittington?
The Royal Northern suffered last year through the closure of the Grovelands convalescent home, and as a result 88 per cent of its acute medical or orthopaedic beds are occupied now by patients over 65 years of age. Yet it has no geriatric service at all, compared with 52 per cent for the Whittington, 46 per cent at the Royal Free and 24 per cent at other Camden hospitals. Furthermore, concentration of services at the Whittington would mean as many as 1,183 beds on a single site—a figure contrary to the Department of Health and Social Security guidance.
I believe that the 10-year time scale for closure is unrealistic. Where are the resources for the massive rebuilding of the Whittington which this would necessitate to come from? We in Islington do not want promises. We want reality. It would be realistic to plan for a district general hospital on both the Whittington and Royal Northern sites. It would also be economic, as it would take advantage of some of the latter's better facilities and of the considerable amount of land still available there.
Planning should start now for an Islington district general hospital, with a Royal Northern and a Whittington branch, complementing, and not duplicating, each other's services.
I may add that I have had to raise through Questions in the House the day-to-day affairs of this hospital, including normal maintenance of the lift service.
I come back to the Whittington Hospital. We hear of plans for the rebuilding of this hospital, but to the people of Islington this is just another bit of pie in the sky. There is nothing definite proposed, and no allocation of finance has been made, while the neurosurgery unit, transferred 22 months ago to the Royal Free Hospital in Camden because of a breakdown of one of its services, still has not been returned. But today I learn that the temporary removal will become permanent. This was decided by the regional health authority against the advice of both the area health authority and the Islington community health council.
The neurosurgical unit at the Whittington has been an integral part of Islington's health services for the past 20 years. Together with neurology, neurosurgery—which was placed at the Whittington as part of an enlighted attempt to upgrade the old LCC hospitals—has contributed to the Whittington's reputation both for service and for post-graduate teaching.
Those concerned have been struggling for years to build up a reputation for teaching, without the benefits of being a teaching hospital, although in recognition of the teaching, it actually does it has recently been designated a university hospital.
Removal of the unit will have a disastrous effect throughout in the attraction of good junior medical staff and paramedical staff. Recently, representatives of the Royal College of Surgeons visited the Whittington to assess its suitability for post-graduate training in anaesthesia but deferred their report until a decision on the future of the neurosurgical unit was made. That decision has now been made. If they withdraw recognition of the senior registrar (training) post now under consideration—as they may well do now that the neurosurgery is to be retained at the Royal Free—it is likely that further services will be withdrawn, resulting in more reductions in surgical facilities to the people of Islington. No similar effect world have been felt at the Royal Free Hospital where there is already a multitude of training posts.
How can the people of Islington accept such vague proposals for rebuilding the Whittington Hospital when they see that its most glamorous service has been taken away from it. It was estimated that its reinstatement at the Whittington would cost £816,000. The Minister, in a reply to my letter of 10th May to the Secretary of State, stated in his reply of 1st June.
OI understand that the number of locations of the Neurosurgical Units in North East Thames is a matter for continuing study, as was announced at the time of the publication of the Regions Draft Strategic Plan, some months ago. The Regional Health Authority do not expect to be in a position to receive reports of consultations and advice before the July meeting at the earliest and may well be unable to arrive at a decision before study of these. A decision of the Regional Health Authority is therefore unlikely before the Autumn. The Islington Community Health Council need not fear that executive decisions will be taken by the Regional Specialist Advisory Sub-Committee, but that Sub-Committee does have a duty to recommend, and an Authority making a decision on such specialist subjects will normally invite and receive advice from such an Advisory Sub-Committee. In the event that a Health Authority wishes to make a major change of use to a hospital and that change is opposed by the Community Health Council, then the matter will he referred to the Secretary of State for decision. No permanent change of use has yet been decided upon by the Regional Health Authority".
The North-East Thames Regional Health Authority has now taken a decision to keep the neurosurgery unit at the Royal Free Hospital in Camden. That decision will have a disastrous effect on the Whittington Hospital, and I hope that the Minister will give me his assurance that he will request the Secretary of State to intervene to reverse that decision.
Other hospital closures in the borough of Islington include the City of London Maternity Hospital in my own constituency—which could provide community facilities for the elderly and mentally ill, or be used as a health centre in view of its excellent physical fabric—and the Liverpool Road Hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, South and Finsbury. Islington is becoming a hospital graveyard.
Islington, although sited in one of the richest health areas and the richest region in the country, is one of the poorest of the London boroughs and is the poorest in health facilities in the region. It is also one of the oldest of the London


boroughs and it is now going through a great transformation. Areas are being demolished and new homes are being built. We have lost a great deal of our industry, which has moved out of London, and the population has declined over the past 10 to 15 years. I shall compare our financial allocation in Islington with that of the London borough of Camden which is covered by the same area health authority.
Although the population of Islington is roughly the same as that of the two Camden areas combined, it receives less than one-third of the financial allocation. It is still further deprived under this year's allocation. Planning points to a reallocation in the direction of the two Camden districts and not towards the poorer district of Islington. Less than half as much is spent on an Islington patient as on a Camden patient. The AHA bed norm of three per 1,000 population is based on the social deprivation of Islington, yet it is being applied over both Islington and Camden, resulting in bumping up bed provision in Camden and benefiting Camden disproportionately to its needs. Furthermore, the March 1976 figures show that the cost of keeping a patient in hospital in Islington is £.32·16 a day compared with £41·65 in Camden, that is, roughly 25 per cent. less.
An examination of staffing levels reveals still further deprivation in Islington compared with the two Camden areas. Islington has 30 consultant psychiatric sessions, compared with 98½ in Camden; 29·72 physiotherapists compared with 86 in Camden; and only one consultant geriatrician compared with Camden's three. Thus, about one-third as much manpower is allocated to an Islington patient as to a Camden patient. This is totally unacceptable to the people of Islington, who feel that measures should be taken towards redistribution of resources into Islington, rather than away from it as is now indicated. Nor is this disparity made up in the community services, where the ratio of health visitors to population is one to 509 in Islington, whereas in the two Camden districts it is one to 274 and one to 207 respectively.
Furthermore, Islington, the poorest district in one of the richest areas in the richest region in the country, has no health services facilities for the mentally handicapped, no domiciliary hearing aid

services, no psychiatric cover in accident and emergency departments, no night nursing services, and few geriatric beds. Staffing levels in geriatrics show Islington's deprivation still further. I have already pointed out that Islington has only one geriatrician to Camden's three, but in other medical sessions—senior registrar, registrar, senior house officer—the figures are 44 for Islington against 87 for Camden, although our populations are the same. Where rehabilitation staff are concerned, Islington has one physiotherapist to Camden's three and one occupational therapist to Camden's seven. Camden is allocated much more than Islington. What steps are being taken to remedy this? We do not want resources taken away from Camden, but we want parity. Our application for a second geriatrician has failed for the second year running. Can the Minister explain why?
According to the National Health Service Planning System, of which the Secretary of State is the guardian, planning should come from the bottom rather than the top. But this is not happening in Islington where the regional authority takes decisions which are contrary to both the area health authority and the community health council's recommendations. Islington cannot plan without additional resources, yet all the evidence is that resources are being taken away from Islington and given to Camden. Neurosurgery is the most frightening example, for it will affect not just resources but standards of medical care here.
I therefore appeal to the Minister and the Secretary of State to intervene now before it is too late, to restore to Islington its essential health services, the return of the neurosurgical unit to the Whittington Hospital, to ensure that the Royal Northern Hospital remains open, and to approve an Islington General Hospital, with a Whittington and a Royal Northern Wing, being ungraded in order to take its place on an equal footing with hospitals in neighbouring Camden, and with adequate resources at its disposal to ensure parity on the basis of population between the boroughs of Islington and Camden, and with the rest of the United Kingdom.
I can assure my hon. Friend that the fight to retain good hospital services will continue. I pay tribute to Islington Community Health Council and its officers.


who realise the situation and have been foremost in putting the views of the people of Islington. I hope that I have indicated that we in Islington are fully aware of the problems and will not accept a dispersal of our hospital services outside the borough. I would ask the Minister therefore to assure me that the Government are aware of our problems in Islington and that such dispersal will not take place.

4.40 a.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Eric Deakins): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. O'Halloran) for raising this topic which is of importance not merely to his own constituents but to others throughout the region. It will allow me the opportunity to say something more to the House about our present efforts to bring a more coherent pattern to the planning of services not only in Islington but within the National Health Service as a whole. One positive benefit is being developed from the reorganisation of the health services in 1974, and that is the emergence of a co-ordinated planning system.
An essential feature of the management arrangement, which the Secretary of State requires health authorities to adopt, is a system of control in which performance is monitored against plans and budgets. Planning systems are seen as a principal means of achieving, a clear line of responsibility for the whole National Health Service down to and within area health authorities, with corresponding accountability from those authorities back to the Secretary of State through the Department.
The National Health Service planning system was introduced in April last year and is intended to encourage the maximum devolution of responsibility for deciding the future patterns of service to those who provide the services, within guidelines set down by this Department. The aim is to ensure the most effective use of resources in the local situation for the benefit of those who use the service.
The NHS planning system is a two-tier system operating simultaneously at both strategic and operational levels. At a strategic level the aim is to devise broad strategies, priorities and resources for the period up to 10 to 15 years ahead.

Strategic plans will be produced at the area authority level, but with a district input, and similarly a strategic plan will be constructed at regional level for the entire region and taking into account area strategic plans. Such plans will be produced every fourth year and reviewed annually within departmental guidance which will provide an overall national framework.
Operational plans are intended to take a sharper focus by examining in detail action proposed for each of the next three years ahead. That is to say, firm plans for year one, provisional plans for year two and outline plans only for year three. The three-year plans are produced annually at district and are incorporated into area plans. Annually the regional health authority will submit progress reports to the Department on operational progress made against the background of this strategic plan.
There is a clear distinction between strategic and operational planning. Strategic planning takes place in the light of broad strategies passed down from the Department to the region and area including the district, but operational planning activity is centred on the district, the basic planning unit, from which plans flow through the area authority to the regional authority. Here they are approved by the regional authority for action if they conform with regional strategy and guidelines. But it is important to recognise that there is also a good deal of interaction with operational planning providing a test of feasibility for strategic plans.
What we are seeing now is the emergence of the first of the strategic plans. There should be consultation on both strategic and operational plans with a wide range of interests and, when the system is operating fully, there should generally have been ample opportunity for consideration of developing ideas by all those with an interest, before they become firm proposals for the first year of the operational plan.
The North-East Thames strategic plan for the years up to 1987 was issued following a meeting of the regional health authority in December last year, it was received in my Department in January and is now the subject of examination. This plan, as I have explained, was derived from considerations of wider


guidelines and inputs from the strategic plans of its constituent areas. Let me say straightaway that the plan is still a draft. Consultation was extended within the region up until the end of June this year. Further, the authority still has to consider a number of topics of particular importance and considerable complexity. It is quite improbable, therefore, that a firm strategic plan will be received by my Department from the North-East Thames region until about November of this year. In the meantime the draft strategic plan which has been received will be considered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State together with those strategic plans received from the other regions, to see how these accord with the guidelines issued to the regions from the Department. Although it is intended that strategic plans will be fully revised every four years, it seems extremely likely that at first more frequent revision will be needed until the planning system itself has become fully effective.
I turn now to the North-East Thames draft strategic plan and to the aims and constraints identified in it. The Secretary of State is committed to seeing a fairer distribution of resources among the regions of the country. In order that the more deprived regions should receive a level of growth of about 3 per cent., the Thames regions are being held to a much lower level of growth. This year North-East Thames region received 0·27 per cent. as its share of the growth money available nationally. It is against this background that the North-East Thames strategic plan is trying to devise strategy to achieve the following aims.
First, the region must redistribute resources within its own allocation and between areas. The outer areas of London and the area of Essex have a growing population and the pressures there on the health services are increasing. There are also pockets of deprivation in London itself where the health services must be improved. My hon. Friend obviously feels strongly that Islington is one such area. Secondly, it is the Government's policy that resources should move towards those long-stay and community services which have been neglected in the past. Thirdly, a rationalisation programme of services requires a consider-

able capital programme of expansion, and five major hospital building starts have been identified for the next decade.
These then are the aims of the regions strategy, and the strategic plan concerns itself largely with the problems of either freeing or creating resources so that these aims may be achieved. A regional resource allocation working party has considered the allocation of revenue within the region and, following the pattern of the Department's own working party on resource allocation, has identified those areas whose revenue needs to be increased, and by the same token those areas whose present allocation of resources greatly exceeds the target figure derived from their consideration.
This then describes the background to my hon. Friend's anxieties. I shall now explain how those anxieties should be regarded and what position for planning and consultation for services within the Islington district has been reached.
Amongst the six topics of great importance and considerable complexity, which the region has not yet covered in its draft strategic plan and for which the period of consultation was extended until the end of June, are particular issues of importance to Islington. These are the needs of the university for teaching purposes, the level of bed provision within Camden and Islington, and the number, size and siting of neurosurgical units within the North-East Thames Regional Health Authority.
In response to the regional health authority's draft strategic plan, the Camden and Islington Area Health Authority planning group was asked to undertake a review of the in-patient services in the area and to determine the level of expected in-patient provision required for the decade ending 1986-87. This review was to be consistent with the service needs for a changing population and the teaching needs of the area's two undergraduate medical schools. The planning group began its task in January this year in conjunction with the district management teams and the Area University Liaison Committee. The time scale imposed required the authority to produce its strategic proposals in terms of the guidelines by the end of June this year for submission to the regional health authority. The review was programmed


over the period January to April of this year so that each specialty was subjected to a study of the existing use of resources district by district.
Full discussion with district management teams and the medical school representatives was maintained throughout the review and consultation with advisory committees, community health councils, local authorities, family practitioner committee and staff organisations was undertaken during the period 27th May to 15th June 1977.
It is recognised that this period of consultation was not as long as most organisations would have wished. Nevertheless, note was taken of their comments and many were incorporated into the report to the Camden and Islington Area Health Authority. This report has now been accepted by the area health authority and has been submitted to the regional health authority. This review of in-patient services has yet to be considered by that authority. Indeed, even at its planning meeting yesterday, the document was not on the agenda. I understand that regional officers are still at work on the document preparing recommendations for consideration by the regional authority. I am of course aware of many of the proposals contained in that document, such as the increase to be expected in the role of the Whittington Hospital as a district general hospital in the coming decade and the consequent closure of the Royal Northern Hospital and the City of London Maternity Hospital during the same period. I am aware, too, of the disquiet of the community health council, not to mention that of my hon. Friend, at some of these proposals and their disagreement with them.
The subject of neurosurgery and the location of the units within the North-East Thames region was discussed at the planning meeting of the regional authority yesterday, and I know that the regional health authority has recommended that neurosurgery should be permanently located at the Royal Free Hospital. The regional and area authorities will now be discussing the next step.
I am aware of the anxieties of Islington and the hopes of the area health authority for the return of its neurosurgical unit to the Whittington Hospital and also of the effect that it is felt that the absence of this unit is having on other

aspects of the hospital's work, such as medical education and training there. I am also aware of the extra cost involved if such a decision is made. Perhaps I can reassure my hon. Friend by empasising the procedures which will have to be followed if a hospital be closed or a change of use, such as permanent relocation of neurosurgery, is to be affected notwithstanding the planning procedues which have already been followed.
In general, the initiation of these procedures rests with the appropraite area health authority. In this case if the area health authority decided that such a closure or change of use, arising from these strategic plans, would be beneficial, it would have to institute formal consultations. The procedures require the authority to prepare a consultative document covering such matters as the reasons for its proposals; an evaluation of the possibilties of using the facilities for other purposes, for the disposal of the site; implications for the staff; the relationship between the closure or change of use and other developments and plans; and the transport facilities for those patients who might be affected by the proposals contained in the document. The AHA will invite comments from a wide range of bodies. Those hon. Members whose constitutents were affected would also be informed of the proposals.
The area health authority would then seek the community health council's views on the comments it received and on its own observations on those comments. The authority would then review its original proposals in the lights of the comments received. Unless there was strong local opposition it could then implement its original proposals, provided that the community health council agreed. The regional health authority and my Department would be informed of the decision.
However, if the community health council objects to the authority's proposals, it is required to submit to the authority a constructive and detailed counter proposal, bearing full regard to the factors, including restraints on resources, which led the authority to make its original proposal. The matter must then be referred to the regional health authority and if the regional health authority is unable to accept the views of the council and wishes to proceed with the


closure or change of use, it falls to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to act as arbiter.
Nothing I say today should therefore be construed as prejudging the issues. the region's draft strategic plan has yet to be seen by my right hon. Friend, the Camden and Islington review of inpatient services has still to be considered by the regional health authority for incorporation into that plan and finally, any firm proposals for action will need to be the subject of formal consultations
588-602
following the pattern that I have just described.
I hope that that will at least reassure my hon. Friend that no final decisions have been taken and that there will be a further opportunity for him and his constituents and those who speak for them to continue with their attitude and opposition if necessary to the proposals that have been made.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Five o'clock a.m.